# The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate



## Coyote

*This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*

*The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *

*I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*

*The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.
Click to expand...






 And not try and force the rule of law retrospectively because we hate the Jews, like you do constantly. The rule of law says the arab muslims have no legal right to the west bank or Jerusalem, so why don't you shout for it to be acted on ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule of law in this situation took account of the fact that the Arab world lost their fight every time they've fought it.  In this way the rule of law can only be so charitable.  The reality remains that you have to choose strong allies, fight and win, or become accustomed to living in an alien society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are still stuck in the duh bomb'em mode.
Click to expand...






 While you are still stuck in the "one day we will outnumber the Jews 10 million to one and be victorious over them" until then you will lose every time because you cant agree on a common leadership so end up getting bombed year after year. One day you will realise that it is your own stupid fault that you are losing every battle, when that day comes you will find it is too late to make amends


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving them countries to satisfy that barbarism isn't advancing anything or making a better world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another valid point. Thats what the West ultimately discovered when it allowed the Zionists to create their barbarous state; Zionist Israel, the cancer in the region, has grown since then and has become more and more malignant.
Click to expand...







 LINK showing that Israel is a cancer and is malignant, like the spread of islam since the end of WW1


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not try and force the rule of law retrospectively because we hate the Jews, like you do constantly. The rule of law says the arab muslims have no legal right to the west bank or Jerusalem, so why don't you shout for it to be acted on ?
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule of law in this situation took account of the fact that the Arab world lost their fight every time they've fought it.  In this way the rule of law can only be so charitable.  The reality remains that you have to choose strong allies, fight and win, or become accustomed to living in an alien society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are still stuck in the duh bomb'em mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are still stuck in the "one day we will outnumber the Jews 10 million to one and be victorious over them" until then you will lose every time because you cant agree on a common leadership so end up getting bombed year after year. One day you will realise that it is your own stupid fault that you are losing every battle, when that day comes you will find it is too late to make amends
Click to expand...

That wasn't me, chief.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule of law in this situation took account of the fact that the Arab world lost their fight every time they've fought it.  In this way the rule of law can only be so charitable.  The reality remains that you have to choose strong allies, fight and win, or become accustomed to living in an alien society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are still stuck in the duh bomb'em mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are still stuck in the "one day we will outnumber the Jews 10 million to one and be victorious over them" until then you will lose every time because you cant agree on a common leadership so end up getting bombed year after year. One day you will realise that it is your own stupid fault that you are losing every battle, when that day comes you will find it is too late to make amends
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't me, chief.
Click to expand...






 It was, just that you wont admit it to yourself


----------



## Programmer

TheOldSchool said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those theoretical questions _(calling for the hypothetical:  "what if")_ where the answer is:  "We'll never know now."
> 
> When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father.  The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten.  The names and places like Monte Cassino, the  Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them.  The Battle of Bataan and  Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me.  They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​
> It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers.  I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs.  The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.
> 
> When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling  the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:
> View attachment 56920​
> Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units _(Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army)_ were both NAZIs: (i)  Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii)  Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht.  Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.
> 
> Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element _(Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home"
> 
> That's the most biased nonsense I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true though, and anyone who is not brainwashed can see it as reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to my original point, this "plight" of the Jewish people and anger at the "arrogant" Palestinians wouldn't exist if the creators of Israel had opted out instead of creating the country.  If they had know the insane religious clusterfuck it would create, they never would have done it.
Click to expand...

Israelis love this bullshit, themselves being religious clusterfuckers.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> TheOldSchool
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those theoretical questions _(calling for the hypothetical:  "what if")_ where the answer is:  "We'll never know now."
> 
> When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father.  The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten.  The names and places like Monte Cassino, the  Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them.  The Battle of Bataan and  Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me.  They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​
> It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers.  I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs.  The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.
> 
> When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling  the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:
> View attachment 56920​
> Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units _(Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army)_ were both NAZIs: (i)  Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii)  Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht.  Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.
> 
> Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element _(Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...








Once again RoccoR descends into spouting drivel, whilest simultaneously trying to create sympathy by invoking the Holocaust and "NAZI" Arabs. Are you taking lessons from Phoney? It's embarassing.

Had you bothered to do even a modicum of research, you would have discovered that ATLAS was an Abwehr  operation, nothing at all to do with the SS, the unit was composed of ex-Brandenburg Regiment German soldiers who were born in Palestine amongst the Templar community of slighly whacko Protestant Christian "millenials", the two Muslims involved Hasan Salama and Abdul Latif were never Nazis. 

Fawzi al-Qawuqi was given a colonel's rank for propaganda purposes, but never swore any German military oath, nor did he declare any allegience to Hitler.  Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni's "ties" to Hitler consisted of one 90 minute meeting during which a photo was taken.


----------



## RoccoR

teddyearp,  et al,

Yes, many people have ask that question.

In moves like this, there is a developed scenario to be told as cover for the action _(in fact we actually say "cover for action")_, and then there is the actual disguised intent (cover for status).



teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the question I have is how did Egypt and Jordan Occupy Palestinian land? Neither of them were at war with Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, they were not, so why did they do it?  Or are you denying that they did?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First, TransJordan sent a communiqué to the Secretary General to set the conditions for the Public Face:

On 29 April 48, TransJordan stated in part:  "Any warlike decision or action on the part of Transjordan will undoubtedly be the cause of the gravest censure by the Security Council and the entire United Nations as a possible threat to peace."​The content here was to plant the idea that TransJordan doesn't want to take interfering military action.  And that TransJordan know that the General Assembly and the Security Council will take a dim view of such an action.  That only some exceptional circumstances would make this necessary. 

On the morning of 16 May 48, TransJordan _(a day after forces cross the departure line)_, and states in part:  "we were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres."​This changes the issue from military intervention to a humanitarian mission; designed to save lives and restore order

Similarly, the Egyptians sent a communiqué  to the Secretary General and the Security explaining why Egyptian forces intervened into the territory formerly under the Mandate.  The response to Security Council inquiries were carefully crafted and embedded with two messages:

The Egyptian Government have declared that their regular forces have entered Palestine with the object of putting an end to the massacres perpetrated by the terrorist Zionist bands against Arabs and against humanity and of safeguarding the lives and property of the inhabitants.

Had the Arab states not intervened with their armed forces when Britain relinquished the mandate, these well trained Zionist bands spread all over Palestine would have annihilated hundreds of thousands of Palestine Arabs who form the vast majority of the inhabitants.​
The first part of the message says that Egypt is only interested in engaging the Terrorist Zionist Bands (TZB).  The second part of the message communicates the idea that military intervention was an absolute necessity; and that this force was responsible for saving the lives of may thousands of Arab Palestinians. 

While everyone understand that the Egyptian Military Administration was the quasi-governorate, the political cover was that the Arab Palestinians were in charge of governing _(in the form of the All Palestinian Government)_, the Gaza Strip _(Annexation via a domestic puppet government)_.  

Jordan opted to use Annexation as the means to incorporate the territory of the West Bank into the domain of a TransJordan.  Jordan established a Parliament comprised of Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank and Jordanians; they were equally represented.  This combined Parliament unanimously approved the annexation of the West Bank.  The stated purpose of which was to halt further progress of Zionist expansion.

In both case, _albeit_ by different methods, the Arab Palestinian exercised their "right to self-determination."  This elevates the appearance of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, in an odd sort of way, our from P F Tinmore is correct.

No instrumentality created the Jewish State of Israel.  



Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate did not create a Jewish state. The UN did not create a Jewish state. The only thing created was a never ending war.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

*ANSWER:*  The right of self-determination via the declarative method to establish political existence of the state and its independence.  This was similar to the method use to create America (Declaration of Independence). 

And many shake their head and say, well "how can this be."  Each of the major political instrument used by the Council of the League, the Allied Powers, and the UN, set conditions which allowed the creation of the modern State of Israel.  The instruments tell us the procedure, until finally, the UN adopts the Preparatory Steps to Independence, which the Jewish Agency accepted and followed _(barring outside Arab interference)_; but which the Arab Palestinians rejected and declined to follow.

This allowed the Jewish People, under Article I of the UN Charter, to declare Independence on the moment the UK Mandate ended and the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) became the successor government.  But the UNPC had been working all along with the Jewish Representative to achieve that moment. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> First, TransJordan sent a communiqué to the Secretary General to set the conditions for the Public Face:
> 
> On 29 April 48, TransJordan stated in part: "Any warlike decision or action on the part of Transjordan will undoubtedly be the cause of the gravest censure by the Security Council and the entire United Nations as a possible threat to peace."



...and now RoccoR resorts to gross misrepresentation, if not outright untruth. From his own link:

The following telegram was sent today by the Consular Commission in Jerusalem to the President of the Security Council:

"President of the Security Council:

"Commission on 28 April *sent to* H.M. King Abdullah Ibn Hussein of Transjordan telegram signed by Chairman as follows: The Security Council Truce Commission for Palestine has been informed that the Government of Transjordan has decided upon a general mobilization and the Transjordan forces will shortly march across the Palestine frontiers. As Your Majesty is aware, the United Nations General Assembly at this time is discussing the question of Palestine, moreover, the Security Council, acting in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, is at present considering the problem of the maintenance of peace in the country and has created this Truce Commission for the purpose of bringing about a truce from hostilities in the Holy Land. *Any warlike decision or action on the part of Transjordan will undoubtedly be the cause of the gravest censure by the Security Council and the entire United Nations as a possible threat to peace.* Accordingly the Security Council Truce Commission for Palestine urges your Majesty in the strongest terms to abstain from any military decisions or acts which may be under contemplation by your Majesty's Government."

The Consular Commission was established by the Security Council on 23 April, composed of the consular representatives of Belgium, France, and the US in Jerusalem, to report to the Security Council on the truce situation in Palestine."
Press Release PAL/162 of 29 April 1948

This is a communique FROM the UN TO Transjordan threatening Abdullah in order to make him abstain from any military decisions and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subsequent declaration by Abdullah, the last part of which is enlightening in itself.

"Secretary-General we were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin. We are aware of our national duty towards Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular and also Nazareth and Bethlehem. * Be sure that we shall be very considerate in connection with Jews in Palestine and while maintaining at the same time the full rights of the Arabs in Palestine. Zionism did not react to our offers made before the entry of armed forces*."
Transjordan army entry into Palestine - Cable from King Abdullah, Press release (16 May 1948)


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Preparatory Steps to Independence,



What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger,  et al,

Two points I would like to make.

I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.

I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.

I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
Click to expand...


*(ANSWER)*

The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.

In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, TransJordan sent a communiqué to the Secretary General to set the conditions for the Public Face:
> 
> On 29 April 48, TransJordan stated in part: "Any warlike decision or action on the part of Transjordan will undoubtedly be the cause of the gravest censure by the Security Council and the entire United Nations as a possible threat to peace."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and now RoccoR resorts to gross misrepresentation, if not outright untruth. From his own link:
> 
> The following telegram was sent today by the Consular Commission in Jerusalem to the President of the Security Council:
> 
> "President of the Security Council:
> 
> "Commission on 28 April *sent to* H.M. King Abdullah Ibn Hussein of Transjordan telegram signed by Chairman as follows: The Security Council Truce Commission for Palestine has been informed that the Government of Transjordan has decided upon a general mobilization and the Transjordan forces will shortly march across the Palestine frontiers. As Your Majesty is aware, the United Nations General Assembly at this time is discussing the question of Palestine, moreover, the Security Council, acting in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, is at present considering the problem of the maintenance of peace in the country and has created this Truce Commission for the purpose of bringing about a truce from hostilities in the Holy Land. *Any warlike decision or action on the part of Transjordan will undoubtedly be the cause of the gravest censure by the Security Council and the entire United Nations as a possible threat to peace.* Accordingly the Security Council Truce Commission for Palestine urges your Majesty in the strongest terms to abstain from any military decisions or acts which may be under contemplation by your Majesty's Government."
> 
> The Consular Commission was established by the Security Council on 23 April, composed of the consular representatives of Belgium, France, and the US in Jerusalem, to report to the Security Council on the truce situation in Palestine."
> Press Release PAL/162 of 29 April 1948
> 
> This is a communique FROM the UN TO Transjordan threatening Abdullah in order to make him abstain from any military decisions and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subsequent declaration by Abdullah, the last part of which is enlightening in itself.
> 
> "Secretary-General we were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin. We are aware of our national duty towards Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular and also Nazareth and Bethlehem. * Be sure that we shall be very considerate in connection with Jews in Palestine and while maintaining at the same time the full rights of the Arabs in Palestine. Zionism did not react to our offers made before the entry of armed forces*."
> Transjordan army entry into Palestine - Cable from King Abdullah, Press release (16 May 1948)
Click to expand...







 You have just reinforced what RoccoR has posted in your lame attempt at attacking Israel, the Jews and anyone that supports them. Your handlers will be letting you go if you keep on doing this.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.

_Recommends​_to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

_ Requests that_

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?

Link?

What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?

Link?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...





 It didn't as that was just a recommendation of what the UN wanted to see.

 None as they could not implement the plan not being authorised to do so.

 Because Israel did not exist until may 15 1948 so could not be mentioned by that name. But it could be referred to by Jewish National Home or Jewish Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

When was Palestine ever a country?

Link?


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced. And the quote was exact. In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything. HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable. I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation. Is that all you can do.



Having read your links it became abundantly clear you were making things up to support your pet theory. 

Your quote:

First, TransJordan sent a communiqué to the Secretary General to set the conditions for the Public Face:

On 29 April 48, TransJordan stated in part: "Any warlike decision or action on the part..."

is obviously false, since it is evident the communique came FROM the U.N. and was sent TO Abdullah not the other way round. If deliberate, this is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. In fact the Arab League declaration preceeds Abdullah's response by a day, making Abdullah's response irrellevant. trying to convert this into some 'crafty plan to cover his invasion' is pure nonsense. ODS HOME PAGE

Oh, thanks for the link on "Steps Preparatory to Independence"; the way you keep writing it with capitalisation, I thought there was some standard procedure within international law for any countries attempting to gain independance, as opposed to something specific to the plan proposed in Res 181


----------



## Programmer

ILOVEISRAEL said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those theoretical questions _(calling for the hypothetical:  "what if")_ where the answer is:  "We'll never know now."
> 
> When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father.  The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten.  The names and places like Monte Cassino, the  Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them.  The Battle of Bataan and  Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me.  They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​
> It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers.  I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs.  The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.
> 
> When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling  the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:
> View attachment 56920​
> Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units _(Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army)_ were both NAZIs: (i)  Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii)  Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht.  Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.
> 
> Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element _(Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> "today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home"
> 
> That's the most biased nonsense I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true though, and anyone who is not brainwashed can see it as reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to my original point, this "plight" of the Jewish people and anger at the "arrogant" Palestinians wouldn't exist if the creators of Israel had opted out instead of creating the country.  If they had know the insane religious clusterfuck it would create, they never would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis love this bullshit, themselves being religious clusterfuckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go Fuck Yourself
Click to expand...

What, you think that "If [the creators of Israel] had know[n] the insane religious clusterfuck it would create, they never would have [created the country]?

This doesn't sound like Israeli history.


----------



## CMike

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

When was it ever an independent Muslim state?

It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

The Palestine Mandate Charter called Palestine a country *ten times*.

You would think that they would be the ones to know.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestine Mandate Charter called Palestine a country *ten times*.
> 
> You would think that they would be the ones to know.
Click to expand...

Yet, you deny the authority of the Mandate Charter. 

So the question remains, when was Palestine ever a country?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Your ascertion is entirely wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandates all transitioned to the UN Trusteeship Program.  [Chapter XII, Article 77(1)]
> 
> Reference your comment (neither of your links mention Israel.):  You are correct.  Prior to the Declaration of Independence, it was referred to as the "Jewish State" in Resolution 181(II), with a representative from the Jewish Agency.  The Joint UNPC media release mentions the implementation of the November 1947 Resolution; meaning the Resolution 181(II).
> 
> The UNPC did invite the Arab Higher Committee to participate in Step Preparatory to Independence for the "Arab State;" but they Arabs declined saying they did not recognize the UN Resolution.  Your observation does not change the salient points of my comment.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> We have been through this before.  The record of the UNPC:
> 05/17/1948 A/AC.21/12/Rev.1 UN Palestine Commission - Documents distributed to the Commission - Note by Secretariat (Rev.1)
> 
> They handled issues of Bank, the Currency Board, Postal Service, Bonds and Certificates, Revenues-liquidations-and debt assumption, and civil aviation issues.  Mining and Licensing Issues.  Food and Drug distributions.  Police Force and Emergency services management.  etc
> 
> The advance party on the ground in theater, March 1948 from the Advance Party on the Subject of Fiscal and Allied Problems.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestine Mandate Charter called Palestine a country *ten times*.
> 
> You would think that they would be the ones to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Palestine Mandate Charter."  I'll assume you are talking about the Mandate for Palestine, which was a
> 
> Country has more than one meaning.  From 1922 to 1948, the Government for the territory under the Mandate for Palestine was that established and administered by the British Government.
> 
> Your document, no matter whatever else it might have been referring to, it was not describing a permanent population; a defined territory, still under British consideration and definition; a government; or a Palestinian entity with capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestine Mandate Charter called Palestine a country *ten times*.
> 
> You would think that they would be the ones to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, you deny the authority of the Mandate Charter.
> 
> So the question remains, when was Palestine ever a country?
Click to expand...

Palestine came into existence in 1924 defined by international borders. Its people were Palestinians. They were recognized around the world as Palestinians. Those Palestinians legally became citizens of Palestine in 1925. UN resolutions state that the Palestinian people in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

Where do you get that it is not a country?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Your ascertion is entirely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandates all transitioned to the UN Trusteeship Program.  [Chapter XII, Article 77(1)]
> 
> Reference your comment (neither of your links mention Israel.):  You are correct.  Prior to the Declaration of Independence, it was referred to as the "Jewish State" in Resolution 181(II), with a representative from the Jewish Agency.  The Joint UNPC media release mentions the implementation of the November 1947 Resolution; meaning the Resolution 181(II).
> 
> The UNPC did invite the Arab Higher Committee to participate in Step Preparatory to Independence for the "Arab State;" but they Arabs declined saying they did not recognize the UN Resolution.  Your observation does not change the salient points of my comment.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> We have been through this before.  The record of the UNPC:
> 05/17/1948 A/AC.21/12/Rev.1 UN Palestine Commission - Documents distributed to the Commission - Note by Secretariat (Rev.1)
> 
> They handled issues of Bank, the Currency Board, Postal Service, Bonds and Certificates, Revenues-liquidations-and debt assumption, and civil aviation issues.  Mining and Licensing Issues.  Food and Drug distributions.  Police Force and Emergency services management.  etc
> 
> The advance party on the ground in theater, March 1948 from the Advance Party on the Subject of Fiscal and Allied Problems.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestine Mandate Charter called Palestine a country *ten times*.
> 
> You would think that they would be the ones to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Palestine Mandate Charter."  I'll assume you are talking about the Mandate for Palestine, which was a
> 
> Country has more than one meaning.  From 1922 to 1948, the Government for the territory under the Mandate for Palestine was that established and administered by the British Government.
> 
> Your document, no matter whatever else it might have been referring to, it was not describing a permanent population; a defined territory, still under British consideration and definition; a government; or a Palestinian entity with capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestine Mandate Charter called Palestine a country *ten times*.
> 
> You would think that they would be the ones to know.
Click to expand...






 NOPE as the word country is not mention in context with Palestine. Unless you have an altered version of the LoN MANDATE OF PALESTINE. Not to be confused with the British mandate


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestine Mandate Charter called Palestine a country *ten times*.
> 
> You would think that they would be the ones to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, you deny the authority of the Mandate Charter.
> 
> So the question remains, when was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine came into existence in 1924 defined by international borders. Its people were Palestinians. They were recognized around the world as Palestinians. Those Palestinians legally became citizens of Palestine in 1925. UN resolutions state that the Palestinian people in Palestine have the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Where do you get that it is not a country?
Click to expand...






 Wrong again as those were the borders of Jewish Palestine. If they were citizens of Palestine then why did their passports say BRITISH.
 And once again the resolutions are just pipe dreams and have no legal force .

 From the words of the Mandate and the UN charter


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Your ascertion is entirely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandates all transitioned to the UN Trusteeship Program.  [Chapter XII, Article 77(1)]
> 
> Reference your comment (neither of your links mention Israel.):  You are correct.  Prior to the Declaration of Independence, it was referred to as the "Jewish State" in Resolution 181(II), with a representative from the Jewish Agency.  The Joint UNPC media release mentions the implementation of the November 1947 Resolution; meaning the Resolution 181(II).
> 
> The UNPC did invite the Arab Higher Committee to participate in Step Preparatory to Independence for the "Arab State;" but they Arabs declined saying they did not recognize the UN Resolution.  Your observation does not change the salient points of my comment.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)
> *
> We have been through this before.  The record of the UNPC:
> 05/17/1948 A/AC.21/12/Rev.1 UN Palestine Commission - Documents distributed to the Commission - Note by Secretariat (Rev.1)
> 
> They handled issues of Bank, the Currency Board, Postal Service, Bonds and Certificates, Revenues-liquidations-and debt assumption, and civil aviation issues.  Mining and Licensing Issues.  Food and Drug distributions.  Police Force and Emergency services management.  etc
> 
> The advance party on the ground in theater, March 1948 from the Advance Party on the Subject of Fiscal and Allied Problems.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestine Mandate Charter called Palestine a country *ten times*.
> 
> You would think that they would be the ones to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Palestine Mandate Charter."  I'll assume you are talking about the Mandate for Palestine, which was a
> 
> Country has more than one meaning.  From 1922 to 1948, the Government for the territory under the Mandate for Palestine was that established and administered by the British Government.
> 
> Your document, no matter whatever else it might have been referring to, it was not describing a permanent population; a defined territory, still under British consideration and definition; a government; or a Palestinian entity with capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?
Click to expand...





 The area of the mandate of Palestine as delineated by the Mandate. It clearly states that the borders are of the mandate and should not be taken as being those of a nation


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Are you kidding me?



P F Tinmore said:


> So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?


*(COMMENT)*
*ANSWER #1*:  Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*; and

•  The Mandatory was selected to administer a territory to be called Palestine, with undetermined boundaries at that time.​
THEN:

*ANSWER #2*:  Actually, the Mandate for Palestine was open-ended.  What the Mandate says --- is:​
_Article 28_

In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> *ANSWER #1*:  Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*; and
> 
> •  The Mandatory was selected to administer a territory to be called Palestine, with undetermined boundaries at that time.​
> THEN:
> 
> *ANSWER #2*:  Actually, the Mandate for Palestine was open-ended.  What the Mandate says --- is:​
> _Article 28_
> 
> In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*,​
Note that they did *not* say the territory of the Mandate.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, it means your timeline is off.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*,​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Note that they did *not* say the territory of the Mandate.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  The Palestine Order in Council (10 Aug 1922)

The term Palestine means: 

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​
•  The Mandate for Palestine (12 Aug 1922)

The Mandate use the phrase:  "administration of the territory of Palestine."​The Order in Council actually makes

territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies = Palestine
.........................................................................Palestine = territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, it means your timeline is off.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*,​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Note that they did *not* say the territory of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  The Palestine Order in Council (10 Aug 1922)
> The term Palestine means:
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​
> •  The Mandate for Palestine (12 Aug 1922)
> 
> The Mandate use the phrase:  "administration of the territory of Palestine."​The Order in Council actually makes
> 
> territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies = Palestine
> .........................................................................Palestine = territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies​Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are grasping at straws trying to push Israeli propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> *ANSWER #1*:  Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*; and
> 
> •  The Mandatory was selected to administer a territory to be called Palestine, with undetermined boundaries at that time.​
> THEN:
> 
> *ANSWER #2*:  Actually, the Mandate for Palestine was open-ended.  What the Mandate says --- is:​
> _Article 28_
> 
> In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*,​
> Note that they did *not* say the territory of the Mandate.
Click to expand...






 Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, it means your timeline is off.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*,​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Note that they did *not* say the territory of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  The Palestine Order in Council (10 Aug 1922)
> The term Palestine means:
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​
> •  The Mandate for Palestine (12 Aug 1922)
> 
> The Mandate use the phrase:  "administration of the territory of Palestine."​The Order in Council actually makes
> 
> territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies = Palestine
> .........................................................................Palestine = territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are grasping at straws trying to push Israeli propaganda.
Click to expand...





 No it is you trying to push arab muslim propaganda when the evidence from a reliable source is produced. Why do you find it so difficult to understand the words in the official transcripts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> *ANSWER #1*:  Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*; and
> 
> •  The Mandatory was selected to administer a territory to be called Palestine, with undetermined boundaries at that time.​
> THEN:
> 
> *ANSWER #2*:  Actually, the Mandate for Palestine was open-ended.  What the Mandate says --- is:​
> _Article 28_
> 
> In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*,​
> Note that they did *not* say the territory of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.
Click to expand...

The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.

Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.

This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This did not happen in 1924.  In fact nothing happened in 1924.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.


The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.

Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.

This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

On the activation of the Mandate for Palestine, the carve-out was established in Article 25.  On 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.

The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, _(although it doesn't mention Palestine specifically)_ finally normalized the international status of several territories under Mandates; including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine as former Ottoman territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey, and administered under a Mandate entrusted to the Mandatory.

It neither makes, gives, or promises the Arab-Palestinian anything regarding independence or sovereignty.  

Don't give an empowerment to Palestine that the Allied Powers and the League of Nations who wrote the Covenant, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Citizenship Order, etc.  They understood what they wrote and they understood what they were obligated to do.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This did not happen in 1924.  In fact nothing happened in 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.
> 
> Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.
> 
> This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.
Click to expand...

*



			(COMMENT)
		
Click to expand...

*


> On the activation of the Mandate for Palestine, the carve-out was established in Article 25.  On 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.
> 
> The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, _(although it doesn't mention Palestine specifically)_ finally normalized the international status of several territories under Mandates; including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine as former Ottoman territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey, and administered under a Mandate entrusted to the Mandatory.
> 
> It neither makes, gives, or promises the Arab-Palestinian anything regarding independence or sovereignty.
> 
> Don't give an empowerment to Palestine that the Allied Powers and the League of Nations who wrote the Covenant, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Citizenship Order, etc.  They understood what they wrote and they understood what they were obligated to do.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh come on.

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.  
The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious.  These are the only rights to be specifically protected.  I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.

Second, in 1918 Palestine was not a self-governing political entity. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine was not a district or political entity of its own under Ottoman Administration.  The area (we call today Palestine) was secured by the Allied Forces in 1917 and it became a military Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) set up to replace the Ottoman administration. OETA South consisted of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre. The military administration was replaced by a British civilian administration in 1920 and the area of OETA South became the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1923, with some border adjustments with Lebanon and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

CMike said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now. <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we have a post that is staying on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't occupied illegally. The arab countries didn't accept the UN partition, and invaded immediately after Israel declared independence.
> 
> So if they didn't accept the partition, that area was not there's to begin with.
Click to expand...

It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on.
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious.  These are the only rights to be specifically protected.  I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.
> 
> Second, in 1918 Palestine was not a self-governing political entity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not a district or political entity of its own under Ottoman Administration.  The area (we call today Palestine) was secured by the Allied Forces in 1917 and it became a military Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) set up to replace the Ottoman administration. OETA South consisted of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre. The military administration was replaced by a British civilian administration in 1920 and the area of OETA South became the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1923, with some border adjustments with Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.​
Indeed that is what the foreigners tried to impose.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.



P F Tinmore said:


> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.


*(QUESTION)*

What was it they wanted to partition???

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.



Wait.  So you are saying you are personally unaware of any legal instruments which assign territory as an expression of the Jewish people's inherent and historical right to self-determination in a national homeland on their ancestral lands?  Or are you saying you are aware of those legal instruments but deny their validity?  Just for clarity's sake so I can properly respond.


----------



## Shusha

Shusha said:


> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.



Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  So you are saying you are personally unaware of any legal instruments which assign territory as an expression of the Jewish people's inherent and historical right to self-determination in a national homeland on their ancestral lands?  Or are you saying you are aware of those legal instruments but deny their validity?  Just for clarity's sake so I can properly respond.
Click to expand...

Nope, I haven't seen anything.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.
Click to expand...

The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Palestine had a temporarily appointed administration. Where does it say that Palestine was not a country? What was it that the Mandate was assigned to?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> *ANSWER #1*:  Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, *within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*; and
> 
> •  The Mandatory was selected to administer a territory to be called Palestine, with undetermined boundaries at that time.​
> THEN:
> 
> *ANSWER #2*:  Actually, the Mandate for Palestine was open-ended.  What the Mandate says --- is:​
> _Article 28_
> 
> In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of* the territory of Palestine*,​
> Note that they did *not* say the territory of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.
> 
> Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.
> 
> This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.
Click to expand...





 So produce the treaty that states Palestine is a nation/state with a capital city and a leader free from the LoN mandate of Palestine ?

 It is that easy to do if you are so sure of your claim. Not your usual link that contains the words " these are the borders of the mandate of Palestine, hereinafter called Palestine"


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were* specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.*
> 
> Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are arguing for here, then.  That Palestine is one contiguous state from the border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon?  And that this can not be changed?  And that it should be under the sovereignty of Arab Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a 1946 map of Palestine. Look in the legend for the border line then find that line on the map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are those borders in 1949? Example:
> 
> *Article V*
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine. *
> 
> *The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949*
> 
> *Still there.*
Click to expand...






 The arab muslims denied this plan so lost a lot of land they could have claimed in 1948. You ane them are crying over your ineptitude and arrogance in demanding all the land and getting nothing. The above map was a proposal and not set in stone borders. And the one you mention is the borders of the Mandate of Palestine with Lebanon as no state or nation of Palestine has ever existed.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This did not happen in 1924.  In fact nothing happened in 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it say the country or nation of Palestine, but the preamble defines what is meant by the territory of Palestine. You have been shown this time and time again and still deny the words exist. The mandate clearly states that the mandate of Palestine will be hereinafter called Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The order in council was in 1922. Palestine did not become a separate entity until 1924.
> 
> Of course they had to fudge the definition before Palestine legally existed.
> 
> This whole argument is a bunch of smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> On the activation of the Mandate for Palestine, the carve-out was established in Article 25.  On 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah.
> 
> The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in August, 1924, _(although it doesn't mention Palestine specifically)_ finally normalized the international status of several territories under Mandates; including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine as former Ottoman territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey, and administered under a Mandate entrusted to the Mandatory.
> 
> It neither makes, gives, or promises the Arab-Palestinian anything regarding independence or sovereignty.
> 
> Don't give an empowerment to Palestine that the Allied Powers and the League of Nations who wrote the Covenant, the San Remo Convention, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Citizenship Order, etc.  They understood what they wrote and they understood what they were obligated to do.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?
Click to expand...






 In the surrender terms that you forget, and stop trying to use laws retrospectively unless you want to have the same done to you.   Where does it mention Palestine as a country. nation or state ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ILOVEISRAEL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now. <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we have a post that is staying on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't occupied illegally. The arab countries didn't accept the UN partition, and invaded immediately after Israel declared independence.
> 
> So if they didn't accept the partition, that area was not there's to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
Click to expand...






 As you have as the proper name for the area was Jewish Palestine, as opposed to trans Jordan that was arab Palestine. read the LoN minutes for the period 1917 to 1924 for the full explanation


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on.
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious.  These are the only rights to be specifically protected.  I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.
> 
> Second, in 1918 Palestine was not a self-governing political entity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do they say that Palestinians were exempt of rights or that Palestine was not a country?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine was not a district or political entity of its own under Ottoman Administration.  The area (we call today Palestine) was secured by the Allied Forces in 1917 and it became a military Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) set up to replace the Ottoman administration. OETA South consisted of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre. The military administration was replaced by a British civilian administration in 1920 and the area of OETA South became the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1923, with some border adjustments with Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only rights mentioned were (i) civil and (ii) religious. These are the only rights to be specifically protected. I can't answer the question if you don't identify which rights you are discussing.​
> Indeed that is what the foreigners tried to impose.
Click to expand...






 What are you talking about, what did foreigners try to impose. Was it the civil and religious rights extant at the time, or was it future rights from 70 yours yet to be invented.

 So what were these civil and religious rights contained in the LoN minutes ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
Click to expand...






 Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

 Show where that is incorrect


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all . They just redefined themselves as a political expediency. As a test, please demonstrate the cultural or ethnic or political differentiation between "Palestinians" and Syrians, Jordanians and/or Lebanese prior to the early 1900's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So they were already there but changed their name? But they were citizens of Palestine since 1925 because they already were living there.
> 
> There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.
Click to expand...





 They were citizens of the mandate of Palestine, which is why they had British passports, British stamps and British money.


 Actually before 1922 they were all the same place, the Ottoman empire


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  So you are saying you are personally unaware of any legal instruments which assign territory as an expression of the Jewish people's inherent and historical right to self-determination in a national homeland on their ancestral lands?  Or are you saying you are aware of those legal instruments but deny their validity?  Just for clarity's sake so I can properly respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, I haven't seen anything.
Click to expand...






 Even though they have been posted on here thousands of times, and you have argued over single words in their texts.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.
Click to expand...






 Said who ?   as that was not a right until just recently, in 1923 the Jews had sovereignty over Jewish Palestine, the arabs over arab Palestine. International treaty says this is so dated 1924


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,

I think you are talking about TWO different kinds of sovereignty.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Said who ?   as that was not a right until just recently, in 1923 the Jews had sovereignty over Jewish Palestine, the arabs over arab Palestine. International treaty says this is so dated 1924
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  Personal Sovereignty (sometimes called self-ownership or or individual autonomy) is a state of true personal freedom.

•  Westphalian and/or Territorial sovereignty of a nation-state based over which no other external agents has control.


An external political power that extends it practical and demonstrated Legal and Actual control over a specified territory
Real Monarchy
Political Sovereignty wherein the Government holds power by a legal system.
Popular Sovereignty in which the citizenry establishes a government, and the power resides in the people.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.  Yeah.  Exactly.  Bingo.  They were the same place.  There was no Lebanon.  There was no Syria.  There was no Jordan.  There was no Palestine. There was no Israel.
> 
> So what, legally, gave Lebanon, and Syria, and Jordan the RIGHT to sovereignty over the territory they now hold?  And in what way does that SAME right deny the rights to the Jewish people over sovereignty as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people of the place, those who normally lived there, had sovereignty over their respective place.
> 
> Sovereignty did not apply to those who normally lived somewhere else.
> 
> Religion is not a factor.
Click to expand...






 But International treaties are, and they gave 22% of the sovereignty to the Jews. The same treaties expressly stated that the arab muslims wishing to remain as full citizens of the Jewish NATIONal home would do so as peaceful people. Any violent action would see them evicted from the state and the loss of their citizenship.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza.  And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank.  And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed.  So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.
> 
> 
> 
> That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were* specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.*
> 
> Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.
Click to expand...







 No borders in 1967, but there were two sets of armistice/ceasefire lines, so which one do you call the 67 borders


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Shusha,  et al,

The scope, the nature and the meaning of the Covenant (especially Article 22), San Remo Agreement, the Order in Council and the Mandate, belongs to the interpretation of the Allied Power and the Council to the League of Nations.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Your sentence is absolutely true.  But I caution you not to make a leap of faith.




The Mandatory (UK) and the Council to the League of Nations, DID NOT WANT sovereignty.  They had absolute control of the territory and the future of the territory, as the title and rights was passed from the surrendering Sovereign _(via Turkey in Article 16)_ to the successor government established by the Allied Powers. 

The Mandate is actually a derivative authority passed down to the Mandatory by the Council of the League of Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
Click to expand...






 Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
 If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

 You lose again through stupid pig headedness


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.
> 
> You lose again through stupid pig headedness
Click to expand...

If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,

They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.



Who were they in trust for? And what was the purpose of that trust?  The establishment of a national homeland for the Jewish people.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It does not work that way.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.
> 
> You lose again through stupid pig headedness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,
> 
> They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Remember, the Title and Rights passed directly to the Allied Powers and not the inhabitants.  
Remember the the control of the territories rested with the Allied Powers.

The inhabitants have no claim.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It does not work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.
> 
> You lose again through stupid pig headedness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,
> 
> They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, the Title and Rights passed directly to the Allied Powers and not the inhabitants.
> Remember the the control of the territories rested with the Allied Powers.
> 
> The inhabitants have no claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Not according to the LoN.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

Where does it say otherwise?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It does not work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> 
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.
> 
> You lose again through stupid pig headedness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,
> 
> They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, the Title and Rights passed directly to the Allied Powers and not the inhabitants.
> Remember the the control of the territories rested with the Allied Powers.
> 
> The inhabitants have no claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the LoN.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If it was as you say, then the Allied Powers would have made it so.  But as it stands, other than the 1988 Declaration by the PLO, the Palestinians have nothing.  They opted to fight a war and did not succeed.

The Palestinians never negotiated a peace, and argue that they want territory handed to them on a silver platter.  Realistically, that is not going to happen.

You can make as many arguments as you want, but the fact of the matter is that Israel has what it has; and what the Palestinians have is shaky at best.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Rocco is a believer in "manifest destiny".  He believes that superior cultures (read European) have the right to displace cultures that are, in his opinion, inferior.  He then misrepresents legal concepts to justify the dispossession of land, civil and social rights from those he feels are inferior as legal and just.  He has actually coined a term for the natives who resist the European colonization as "hostiles", not ever considering that it is  those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles.  It is that basic fact that makes anything that he writes, nonsense.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> ... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...



1.  An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate.  Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?  

2.  The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare.  Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?

Perhaps you are not.  But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?


----------



## teddyearp

The world was a much different place at the end of WWI than it is now.  Cultures didn't matter.  All that mattered then was who won the war, and to the winner went the spoils (land).


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate.  Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?
> 
> 2.  The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare.  Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?
> 
> Perhaps you are not.  But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?
Click to expand...

When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.

In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Well, let's get back to the topic at hand and dispense with the _ad hominem_ approach.



montelatici said:


> Rocco is a believer in "manifest destiny".  He believes that superior cultures (read European) have the right to displace cultures that are, in his opinion, inferior.  He then misrepresents legal concepts to justify the dispossession of land, civil and social rights from those he feels are inferior as legal and just.  He has actually coined a term for the natives who resist the European colonization as "hostiles", not ever considering that it is  those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles.  It is that basic fact that makes anything that he writes, nonsense.


*(COMMENT)*

There are five general type of Acquisition of Sovereign Territory.


*Cession:* When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory maybe voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease.​
In the case of the Mandate:  The Mandate was assigned by the League of Nations, with the Treaty, the title and rights were transferred to the Allied Powers.

Dispossession if a issue pertaining to privately owner territories.  You cannot be Dispossessed of a sovereignty you never had.  What you are talking about is a civil matter pertaining to property rights.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.



Israel did not come into being by military conquest.  It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did.  Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself.  And is still the only one who has to* conceptually* defend itself as well as physically defend itself.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not come into being by military conquest.  It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did.  Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself.  And is still the only one who has to* conceptually* defend itself as well as physically defend itself.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.

I can't buy into that concept.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Who is the colonial power?



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not come into being by military conquest.  It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did.  Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself.  And is still the only one who has to* conceptually* defend itself as well as physically defend itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.
> 
> I can't buy into that concept.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Are you kidding me?

Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors.  There is no "LAW"  _(get that --- a Law)_ that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens.  In fact it is just the exact opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Who is the colonial power?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not come into being by military conquest.  It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did.  Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself.  And is still the only one who has to* conceptually* defend itself as well as physically defend itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.
> 
> I can't buy into that concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors.  There is no "LAW"  _(get that --- a Law)_ that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens.  In fact it is just the exact opposite.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.



There are no colonizers and there are no foreigners in this discussion.  *That* is the concept which is faulty.

The Jewish people are indigenous people.  The Jewish people have had a continuous presence on the land for 4000 years.  The Jewish people lost their sovereignty and their homeland due to ethnic cleansing by a belligerent enemy. The Jewish people, by right of their historical sovereignty and their continued and ancient presence, are reconstituting their national homeland.

The only way to get around this -- the only way to deny this -- is to believe that ethnic cleansing is a valid and legal way to remove sovereignty from an indigenous people.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no colonizers and there are no foreigners in this discussion.  *That* is the concept which is faulty.
> 
> The Jewish people are indigenous people.  The Jewish people have had a continuous presence on the land for 4000 years.  The Jewish people lost their sovereignty and their homeland due to ethnic cleansing by a belligerent enemy. The Jewish people, by right of their historical sovereignty and their continued and ancient presence, are reconstituting their national homeland.
> 
> The only way to get around this -- the only way to deny this -- is to believe that ethnic cleansing is a valid and legal way to remove sovereignty from an indigenous people.
Click to expand...


How can Europeans be indigenous to Palestine?  The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine regardless of the religion they adopted through the centuries.  Non-Christians could not have had   a continuous presence.  Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, non-Christians converted from the Roman and other religions. Non-Christians, including Jews only returned to the area with the Muslim conquest.


----------



## montelatici

And of course the Europeans were colonizers, they claimed to be such themselves in print as early as 1899.













Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin

AND AGAIN IN 1926 WITH A PLAN TO EXTEND COLONIZATION BEYOND PALESTINE.

*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ*
July 25, 1926
Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing ServicesShare on emailShare on print



London (Jul. 23)

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The various phases of the present situation in Palestine and in the Zionist movement throughout the world, and plans of Zionist leadership for the immediate future, were submitted for consideration at the Zionist Actions Committee which opened its session here yesterday. The contemplated trip to the United States of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, the continuation of his efforts while in America to extend the Jewish Agency through his negotiations with the Marshall group,* the possibilities of extending Jewish colonization work outside of the present Palestine frontiers, including. Transjordania and certain parts of Syria, were the main features around which the deliberations centered.*

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.
> 
> You lose again through stupid pig headedness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,
> 
> They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.
Click to expand...





 Under what treaty/guidelines/charter ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It does not work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> 
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.
> 
> You lose again through stupid pig headedness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,
> 
> They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, the Title and Rights passed directly to the Allied Powers and not the inhabitants.
> Remember the the control of the territories rested with the Allied Powers.
> 
> The inhabitants have no claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the LoN.
Click to expand...







 LINK saying that the land passed directly to the arab muslims that fought on the side of the Ottomans against the British ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Rocco is a believer in "manifest destiny".  He believes that superior cultures (read European) have the right to displace cultures that are, in his opinion, inferior.  He then misrepresents legal concepts to justify the dispossession of land, civil and social rights from those he feels are inferior as legal and just.  He has actually coined a term for the natives who resist the European colonization as "hostiles", not ever considering that it is  those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles.  It is that basic fact that makes anything that he writes, nonsense.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate.  Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?
> 
> 2.  The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare.  Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?
> 
> Perhaps you are not.  But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?
Click to expand...






 Of course he wouldn't as that would mean he was illegitimate as well as being two faced and a hypocrite. After all his forbears invaded America, Mexico, Brazil etc. and stole the natives land and property for their own gain on the say so of their religions high priest. Making it a direct command from God.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate.  Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?
> 
> 2.  The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare.  Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?
> 
> Perhaps you are not.  But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
Click to expand...






 LINK showing that this was international law in 1948, as the first time it appeared as a recommendation was in 1967 in the UN res 242.   Stop trying to make resolutions international laws and then using them retrospectively


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not come into being by military conquest.  It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did.  Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself.  And is still the only one who has to* conceptually* defend itself as well as physically defend itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.
> 
> I can't buy into that concept.
Click to expand...






 Which colonial power is that then as I cant find any mention of a colonial power in Palestine other than the arab muslims


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Who is the colonial power?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not come into being by military conquest.  It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did.  Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself.  And is still the only one who has to* conceptually* defend itself as well as physically defend itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.
> 
> I can't buy into that concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors.  There is no "LAW"  _(get that --- a Law)_ that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens.  In fact it is just the exact opposite.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.
Click to expand...






 No it is the foreign arab muslims that are the aggressors and the Jews by right of international law that are the defenders. You still have not produced the link showing when the land was transferred to arab muslim sovereignty


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no colonizers and there are no foreigners in this discussion.  *That* is the concept which is faulty.
> 
> The Jewish people are indigenous people.  The Jewish people have had a continuous presence on the land for 4000 years.  The Jewish people lost their sovereignty and their homeland due to ethnic cleansing by a belligerent enemy. The Jewish people, by right of their historical sovereignty and their continued and ancient presence, are reconstituting their national homeland.
> 
> The only way to get around this -- the only way to deny this -- is to believe that ethnic cleansing is a valid and legal way to remove sovereignty from an indigenous people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can Europeans be indigenous to Palestine?  The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine regardless of the religion they adopted through the centuries.  Non-Christians could not have had   a continuous presence.  Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, non-Christians converted from the Roman and other religions. Non-Christians, including Jews only returned to the area with the Muslim conquest.
Click to expand...





 How can European Catholics be indigenous to the whole of the America's. The first nations people are Indigenous, you and your cult of proto Jews are not. You are lucky to trace your ancestry back further than 5 generations in America, the Jews of the world can trace theirs back 500 generations to Palestine.  Why have a cut off date of 300 C.E., is it because you know that the Jews were indigenous to the land for the preceding 2,500 years. Also you forget that it was only Jerusalem they were denied \access to and not the whole of Samaria and Judea. Your words sound very petulant when you make false claims about non Christians not having a contiguous presence on the land without providing any real proof other than anti semitic lies and Jew hatred propaganda. As everyone who can read knows the muslims in the early 7C stated that the land of Palestine was the Jews national home, and the Christians were recent colonisers and invaders


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are twisting the fact here.  It is not like this happened overnight.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Who is the colonial power?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not come into being by military conquest.  It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did.  Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself.  And is still the only one who has to* conceptually* defend itself as well as physically defend itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.
> 
> I can't buy into that concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors.  There is no "LAW"  _(get that --- a Law)_ that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens.  In fact it is just the exact opposite.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers, having accepted ALL title and rights from the former sovereign, arranged for the immigration of Jewish People to the territory to which the Allied Powers held title and rights.  The Allied Powers had this legal authority and mandate to effect, for the purpose of building a Jewish National Home.  The Allied Powers, through the Mandatory had already passed 77% of the original territory into Arab hands to create and Arab Kingdom.

The immigrants, may be considered foreigners to the Arabs Palestinians; but they were legal residence that had been encouraged to immigrate.

It was the Arab Palestinian that began to create a hostile environment for the Jewish Immigrants.  Anytime a people have to face a hostile element that openly initiated offensive actions against them, they have the right to defend themselves.

You are trying to politicize a normal human reaction; that is to form a safe and secure environment _(Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)_. 



The fact that the inhabitance of the former Occupied Enemy Territory (OETA), lead by a incited belief that they had some exclusive title and rights, does not given them any moral, legal, or otherwise any other grounds to become offensive _(the Arab Revolt begins in 1916; largely orchestrated by Sherif Hussein bin Ali with the intention of securing independence from the ruling Ottoman).  _The Riots of 1920 in Jerusalem in British-controlled part of OETA , incited by Arab religious leaders, led to violent assaults on Jerusalem Jews.  Chief among these Religious Leaders was Amin al-Husseini _(himself a former enemy Ottoman Army Officer)_; who would ultimately become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  _(For his part in the incitement to riot, al-Husseini was sentenced prison but escaped to Syria before incarceration.)_ 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Rocco et al*:*

Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.

*ARTICLE 20.*
_*The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, *it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
*_
Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.

"*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there *should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
*
Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.

When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

That is you interpretation.   The Covenant (1919), does not limit the Council of the League of Nations; as to what can and can be done.

Article 20 deals with obligations PRIOR to signing the Covenant.  The Article 20 does not interfere with Treaties of the Allied Powers or the Mandates assigned by the League of Nations.

I find it unfathomable that the Palestinians of today, can look back a Century and tell what the intentions were of the League of Nations and Allied Powers wrote and did.



montelatici said:


> Rocco et al*:*
> 
> Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.
> 
> *ARTICLE 20.*
> _*The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, *it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
> *_
> Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.
> 
> "*ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there *should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> *
> Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.


*(COMMENT)*

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.  That statement of intent was then agreed to by the convention of the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920); made up of member of the Council to the League.  It is not like these are entirely different sets of people.  The Council, the Allied Powers, and the convention at San Remo were, essentially influenced by the same people and powers.

Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people.  So you can not imply that the inhabitants of Palestine _(which had not been defined yet, as it was not a Ottoman political subdivision)_ as either included or excluded _(the Covenant takes no specific notice at all of the inhabitance to the 6 Sanjuk of the Vilayet of Beirut, the 4 Sanjuk to the Vilayet of Syria, or the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem)_.  It say "certain communities."   More than three-quarters of the inhabitance of the territory that would later be subject to the Mandate, was very early on, identified as Palestine (under Mandate).  The Emir (Faisal) established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on 11 April, 1921; and on 15  May, 1923, the Mandatory (Britain) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah _(and on 22 March, 1946, HM The King (Britian) recognizes Transjordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof)_.  

The Council of the League of Nations assigned the Mandate and criteria for the establishment of a Jewish National Home within the Territory covered by the Mandate.  And the Council was provided an annual report pertaining to the Mandate.

The Covenant does not adversely impact the future Treaties _(1919 and into the future)_; and does not make anything that is executed pursuant to the League of Nations approved Mandate contrary or inconsistent to the Covenant.   AND as necessary, the future treaties and agreement that were considered by the Council without objection, were deemed consistent with their intentions.  It is all the same people.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.
> 
> You lose again through stupid pig headedness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,
> 
> They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under what treaty/guidelines/charter ?
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Lausanne, the LoN covenant, the citizenship order of 1925, all reiterating customary international law.

Personal private property is protected and "state lands" are owned collectively by the citizens.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> That is you interpretation.   The Covenant (1919), does not limit the Council of the League of Nations; as to what can and can be done.
> 
> Article 20 deals with obligations PRIOR to signing the Covenant.  The Article 20 does not interfere with Treaties of the Allied Powers or the Mandates assigned by the League of Nations.
> 
> I find it unfathomable that the Palestinians of today, can look back a Century and tell what the intentions were of the League of Nations and Allied Powers wrote and did.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al*:*
> 
> Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.
> 
> *ARTICLE 20.*
> _*The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, *it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
> *_
> Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.
> 
> "*ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there *should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> *
> Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.  That statement of intent was then agreed to by the convention of the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920); made up of member of the Council to the League.  It is not like these are entirely different sets of people.  The Council, the Allied Powers, and the convention at San Remo were, essentially influenced by the same people and powers.
> 
> Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people.  So you can not imply that the inhabitants of Palestine _(which had not been defined yet, as it was not a Ottoman political subdivision)_ as either included or excluded _(the Covenant takes no specific notice at all of the inhabitance to the 6 Sanjuk of the Vilayet of Beirut, the 4 Sanjuk to the Vilayet of Syria, or the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem)_.  It say "certain communities."   More than three-quarters of the inhabitance of the territory that would later be subject to the Mandate, was very early on, identified as Palestine (under Mandate).  The Emir (Faisal) established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on 11 April, 1921; and on 15  May, 1923, the Mandatory (Britain) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah _(and on 22 March, 1946, HM The King (Britian) recognizes Transjordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof)_.
> 
> The Council of the League of Nations assigned the Mandate and criteria for the establishment of a Jewish National Home within the Territory covered by the Mandate.  And the Council was provided an annual report pertaining to the Mandate.
> 
> The Covenant does not adversely impact the future Treaties _(1919 and into the future)_; and does not make anything that is executed pursuant to the League of Nations approved Mandate contrary or inconsistent to the Covenant.   AND as necessary, the future treaties and agreement that were considered by the Council without objection, were deemed consistent with their intentions.  It is all the same people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people.​
It was a blanket article that included everyone and no exceptions were mentioned.

The Palestinians did not have to be included by name, but they would have had to been excluded by name. They were not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate.  Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?
> 
> 2.  The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare.  Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?
> 
> Perhaps you are not.  But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK showing that this was international law in 1948, as the first time it appeared as a recommendation was in 1967 in the UN res 242.   Stop trying to make resolutions international laws and then using them retrospectively
Click to expand...

It is in the 1945 UN Charter that was based on already existing international law.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> That is you interpretation.   The Covenant (1919), does not limit the Council of the League of Nations; as to what can and can be done.
> 
> Article 20 deals with obligations PRIOR to signing the Covenant.  The Article 20 does not interfere with Treaties of the Allied Powers or the Mandates assigned by the League of Nations.
> 
> I find it unfathomable that the Palestinians of today, can look back a Century and tell what the intentions were of the League of Nations and Allied Powers wrote and did.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al*:*
> 
> Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.
> 
> *ARTICLE 20.*
> _*The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, *it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
> *_
> Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.
> 
> "*ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there *should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> *
> Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.  That statement of intent was then agreed to by the convention of the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920); made up of member of the Council to the League.  It is not like these are entirely different sets of people.  The Council, the Allied Powers, and the convention at San Remo were, essentially influenced by the same people and powers.
> 
> Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people.  So you can not imply that the inhabitants of Palestine _(which had not been defined yet, as it was not a Ottoman political subdivision)_ as either included or excluded _(the Covenant takes no specific notice at all of the inhabitance to the 6 Sanjuk of the Vilayet of Beirut, the 4 Sanjuk to the Vilayet of Syria, or the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem)_.  It say "certain communities."   More than three-quarters of the inhabitance of the territory that would later be subject to the Mandate, was very early on, identified as Palestine (under Mandate).  The Emir (Faisal) established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on 11 April, 1921; and on 15  May, 1923, the Mandatory (Britain) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah _(and on 22 March, 1946, HM The King (Britian) recognizes Transjordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof)_.
> 
> The Council of the League of Nations assigned the Mandate and criteria for the establishment of a Jewish National Home within the Territory covered by the Mandate.  And the Council was provided an annual report pertaining to the Mandate.
> 
> The Covenant does not adversely impact the future Treaties _(1919 and into the future)_; and does not make anything that is executed pursuant to the League of Nations approved Mandate contrary or inconsistent to the Covenant.   AND as necessary, the future treaties and agreement that were considered by the Council without objection, were deemed consistent with their intentions.  It is all the same people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.​
Indeed, it had *zero* legal weight.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are twisting the fact here.  It is not like this happened overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Who is the colonial power?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not come into being by military conquest.  It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did.  Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself.  And is still the only one who has to* conceptually* defend itself as well as physically defend itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.
> 
> I can't buy into that concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors.  There is no "LAW"  _(get that --- a Law)_ that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens.  In fact it is just the exact opposite.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers, having accepted ALL title and rights from the former sovereign, arranged for the immigration of Jewish People to the territory to which the Allied Powers held title and rights.  The Allied Powers had this legal authority and mandate to effect, for the purpose of building a Jewish National Home.  The Allied Powers, through the Mandatory had already passed 77% of the original territory into Arab hands to create and Arab Kingdom.
> 
> The immigrants, may be considered foreigners to the Arabs Palestinians; but they were legal residence that had been encouraged to immigrate.
> 
> It was the Arab Palestinian that began to create a hostile environment for the Jewish Immigrants.  Anytime a people have to face a hostile element that openly initiated offensive actions against them, they have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> You are trying to politicize a normal human reaction; that is to form a safe and secure environment _(Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)_.
> View attachment 57223​The fact that the inhabitance of the former Occupied Enemy Territory (OETA), lead by a incited belief that they had some exclusive title and rights, does not given them any moral, legal, or otherwise any other grounds to become offensive _(the Arab Revolt begins in 1916; largely orchestrated by Sherif Hussein bin Ali with the intention of securing independence from the ruling Ottoman).  _The Riots of 1920 in Jerusalem in British-controlled part of OETA , incited by Arab religious leaders, led to violent assaults on Jerusalem Jews.  Chief among these Religious Leaders was Amin al-Husseini _(himself a former enemy Ottoman Army Officer)_; who would ultimately become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  _(For his part in the incitement to riot, al-Husseini was sentenced prison but escaped to Syria before incarceration.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Allied Powers had this legal authority and mandate to effect, for the purpose of building a Jewish National Home.​
How did the Mandate interpret the meaning of  Jewish National Home?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> That is you interpretation.   The Covenant (1919), does not limit the Council of the League of Nations; as to what can and can be done.
> 
> Article 20 deals with obligations PRIOR to signing the Covenant.  The Article 20 does not interfere with Treaties of the Allied Powers or the Mandates assigned by the League of Nations.
> 
> I find it unfathomable that the Palestinians of today, can look back a Century and tell what the intentions were of the League of Nations and Allied Powers wrote and did.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al*:*
> 
> Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.
> 
> *ARTICLE 20.*
> _*The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, *it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
> *_
> Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.
> 
> "*ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there *should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> *
> Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.  That statement of intent was then agreed to by the convention of the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920); made up of member of the Council to the League.  It is not like these are entirely different sets of people.  The Council, the Allied Powers, and the convention at San Remo were, essentially influenced by the same people and powers.
> 
> Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people.  So you can not imply that the inhabitants of Palestine _(which had not been defined yet, as it was not a Ottoman political subdivision)_ as either included or excluded _(the Covenant takes no specific notice at all of the inhabitance to the 6 Sanjuk of the Vilayet of Beirut, the 4 Sanjuk to the Vilayet of Syria, or the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem)_.  It say "certain communities."   More than three-quarters of the inhabitance of the territory that would later be subject to the Mandate, was very early on, identified as Palestine (under Mandate).  The Emir (Faisal) established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on 11 April, 1921; and on 15  May, 1923, the Mandatory (Britain) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah _(and on 22 March, 1946, HM The King (Britian) recognizes Transjordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof)_.
> 
> The Council of the League of Nations assigned the Mandate and criteria for the establishment of a Jewish National Home within the Territory covered by the Mandate.  And the Council was provided an annual report pertaining to the Mandate.
> 
> The Covenant does not adversely impact the future Treaties _(1919 and into the future)_; and does not make anything that is executed pursuant to the League of Nations approved Mandate contrary or inconsistent to the Covenant.   AND as necessary, the future treaties and agreement that were considered by the Council without objection, were deemed consistent with their intentions.  It is all the same people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco et al,

The Covenant specifically addresses prior agreements in contravention with the terms of the Covenant. The Balfour Declaration was issued prior to the signing of the Covenant and is in contravention of the Covenant.

The Covenant addresses future agreements that are in contravention of the Covenant.  

Agreements that contravened Article 22 would be in contravention of the Covenant, by definition.  

The inhabitants of the territories subject of Article 22 were the inhabitants of the territories at the time of the signing.  The inhabitants of Palestine were therefore included, by definition.

None of your previous post makes any sense.  Your inability to understand the precise and plain English of the Covenant is extraordinary.

The British simply ignored the terms of the Covenant.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This recent reliance of arguments based on undocumented Customary Law is getting ridiculous.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is in the 1945 UN Charter that was based on already existing international law.


*(COMMENT)*

In fact, some of the new 1945 concepts (self determination, territorial acquisition by force) actually reverse established common law. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.​
> Indeed, it had *zero* legal weight.



Until it was incorporated into the San Remo Resolution.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,



montelatici said:


> Rocco et al,
> 
> The Covenant specifically addresses prior agreements in contravention with the terms of the Covenant. The Balfour Declaration was issued prior to the signing of the Covenant and is in contravention of the Covenant.
> 
> The Covenant addresses future agreements that are in contravention of the Covenant.
> 
> Agreements that contravened Article 22 would be in contravention of the Covenant, by definition.
> 
> The inhabitants of the territories subject of Article 22 were the inhabitants of the territories at the time of the signing.  The inhabitants of Palestine were therefore included, by definition.
> 
> None of your previous post makes any sense.  Your inability to understand the precise and plain English of the Covenant is extraordinary.
> 
> The British simply ignored the terms of the Covenant.


*(COMMENT)*

First the Balfour Declaration is NOT AN AGREEMENT.  It is a notice of intention.

There is nothing that has been accepted or awarded by the Council to the League of Nations that is contrary by Covenant.

The Palestinians were not mentioned in Article 22.  Not all inhabitants where given autonomy in the Covenant.  The Covenant, pre-dates the Treaty.  And the newer Treaty take precedence.

I understand the Covenant quite well.  

22(4)  "Certain Territories" is not equivalent to "all territories." 

22(2)  "Best Methods" are not the "only Methods" and Article 22 does not demand that any particular mandate achieve a specific objective..

You are desperately trying to find something that the Allied Powers and the League of nations did, that you can say, denied the Arab-Palestinian something they were due.  Well that is the wrong path.  

Article 16:  Treaty of Lausanne
Turkey hereby *renounces all rights and title* whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her *sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned*.​
It was up to the Allied Powers to decide.  No matter what the Covenant says, the waring parties have spoken.  And, it was (unequivocally) stated at the outset, that the intention was to create a Jewish National Home; as past down from the Council of the League of Nations to the British as a Mandate.

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.  That is the end game.  Today, seven decades later, the State of Israel is a thriving and modern nation which the Arab did everything to destroy.  There is no advantage to the Region or to the world in allowing the Arab Palestinian to damage and destroy a nation that makes such contributions to humanity as a whole.   Certainly the last thing that anyone wants if for the expansion of another failed state that cannot stand on it own.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, well no one was really in the mood to ask the inhabitance of a territory that supported an opposition Empire in conflict, what their legal opinion was.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it had *zero* legal weight.


*(COMMENT)*

You know, this solution did not happen just once.  It happened twice.  The powers-that-be understood the legalities and the objections of the inhabitance, of the former Occupied Enemy Territory.  Just as the League of Nations issued a Mandate that supported the establishment of a Jewish National Home, so it was the the UN set the conditions, and established the steps preparatory to independence that allow the Jewish People to exercise their right of self-determination, which brought the Jewish State into existence.

And ever since then, one facet or another of the Arab-Palestinian, focusing on conflict, have been trying to excise the Jewish People from the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al,
> 
> The Covenant specifically addresses prior agreements in contravention with the terms of the Covenant. The Balfour Declaration was issued prior to the signing of the Covenant and is in contravention of the Covenant.
> 
> The Covenant addresses future agreements that are in contravention of the Covenant.
> 
> Agreements that contravened Article 22 would be in contravention of the Covenant, by definition.
> 
> The inhabitants of the territories subject of Article 22 were the inhabitants of the territories at the time of the signing.  The inhabitants of Palestine were therefore included, by definition.
> 
> None of your previous post makes any sense.  Your inability to understand the precise and plain English of the Covenant is extraordinary.
> 
> The British simply ignored the terms of the Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Balfour Declaration is NOT AN AGREEMENT.  It is a notice of intention.
> 
> There is nothing that has been accepted or awarded by the Council to the League of Nations that is contrary by Covenant.
> 
> The Palestinians were not mentioned in Article 22.  Not all inhabitants where given autonomy in the Covenant.  The Covenant, pre-dates the Treaty.  And the newer Treaty take precedence.
> 
> I understand the Covenant quite well.
> 
> 22(4)  "Certain Territories" is not equivalent to "all territories."
> 
> 22(2)  "Best Methods" are not the "only Methods" and Article 22 does not demand that any particular mandate achieve a specific objective..
> 
> You are desperately trying to find something that the Allied Powers and the League of nations did, that you can say, denied the Arab-Palestinian something they were due.  Well that is the wrong path.
> 
> Article 16:  Treaty of Lausanne
> Turkey hereby *renounces all rights and title* whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her *sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned*.​
> It was up to the Allied Powers to decide.  No matter what the Covenant says, the waring parties have spoken.  And, it was (unequivocally) stated at the outset, that the intention was to create a Jewish National Home; as past down from the Council of the League of Nations to the British as a Mandate.
> 
> The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.  That is the end game.  Today, seven decades later, the State of Israel is a thriving and modern nation which the Arab did everything to destroy.  There is no advantage to the Region or to the world in allowing the Arab Palestinian to damage and destroy a nation that makes such contributions to humanity as a whole.   Certainly the last thing that anyone wants if for the expansion of another failed state that cannot stand on it own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


If the Balfour Declaration was not an agreement, then the British would not have used it to usurp, illegally, the terms of the Covenant.

Israel is a western outpost.  No different than Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa before their return to native rule.  Israel as the source of much of the conflict between the west and Muslims outweighs any over advertised "contributions".  Most are based on stolen technology anyway. 

You are basically a racist Rocco.  You believe that Europeans should rule over non-Europeans and have a visceral hate of Arabs, Christian and Muslims.

Israel will revert to native rule eventually, it is just a matter of time.  Whether it turns out to be a Rhodesian or South African result depends on the Israelis.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco et al,
> 
> The Covenant specifically addresses prior agreements in contravention with the terms of the Covenant. The Balfour Declaration was issued prior to the signing of the Covenant and is in contravention of the Covenant.
> 
> The Covenant addresses future agreements that are in contravention of the Covenant.
> 
> Agreements that contravened Article 22 would be in contravention of the Covenant, by definition.
> 
> The inhabitants of the territories subject of Article 22 were the inhabitants of the territories at the time of the signing.  The inhabitants of Palestine were therefore included, by definition.
> 
> None of your previous post makes any sense.  Your inability to understand the precise and plain English of the Covenant is extraordinary.
> 
> The British simply ignored the terms of the Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Balfour Declaration is NOT AN AGREEMENT.  It is a notice of intention.
> 
> There is nothing that has been accepted or awarded by the Council to the League of Nations that is contrary by Covenant.
> 
> The Palestinians were not mentioned in Article 22.  Not all inhabitants where given autonomy in the Covenant.  The Covenant, pre-dates the Treaty.  And the newer Treaty take precedence.
> 
> I understand the Covenant quite well.
> 
> 22(4)  "Certain Territories" is not equivalent to "all territories."
> 
> 22(2)  "Best Methods" are not the "only Methods" and Article 22 does not demand that any particular mandate achieve a specific objective..
> 
> You are desperately trying to find something that the Allied Powers and the League of nations did, that you can say, denied the Arab-Palestinian something they were due.  Well that is the wrong path.
> 
> Article 16:  Treaty of Lausanne
> Turkey hereby *renounces all rights and title* whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her *sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned*.​
> It was up to the Allied Powers to decide.  No matter what the Covenant says, the waring parties have spoken.  And, it was (unequivocally) stated at the outset, that the intention was to create a Jewish National Home; as past down from the Council of the League of Nations to the British as a Mandate.
> 
> The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.  That is the end game.  Today, seven decades later, the State of Israel is a thriving and modern nation which the Arab did everything to destroy.  There is no advantage to the Region or to the world in allowing the Arab Palestinian to damage and destroy a nation that makes such contributions to humanity as a whole.   Certainly the last thing that anyone wants if for the expansion of another failed state that cannot stand on it own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.​
Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, I don't think I'm a person who shows prejudicial treatment against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First the Balfour Declaration is NOT AN AGREEMENT.  It is a notice of intention.
> 
> 
> 
> If the Balfour Declaration was not an agreement, then the British would not have used it to usurp, illegally, the terms of the Covenant.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In order for there to be an "Agreement" _(a promise in exchange for a promise)_ there has to be _(among other requirements)_:

•  There has to be (at least) two parties.

•  There must be an "offer" made by one party to another party.  And the "offer" must be "accept" by the party to which the offer was made.  The "offer" must be very plain and clear, the meaning understood by both parties.

•  Each party must be in agreement ("Mutual Assent").  Each party must agree to the terms and definitions used.  Assent _(the expression of approval or agreement)_ may be shown by either in explicit words or unmistakeable deeds.

•  There must be some form of Consideration --- something of value in return for something of value; each party exchanging something of value with the other.

Additionally, there is a question of "capacity" and the format/content in which such an agreement must take.  You will notice that an Armistice Agreement is somewhat different from a Peace Treaty, which is again different from a Pledge and Authority like the Nonproliferation Treaty.​
The Balfour Declaration has none of these components.   Even the idea of a "national home" is really undefined.



montelatici said:


> Israel is a western outpost.  No different than Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa before their return to native rule.  Israel as the source of much of the conflict between the west and Muslims outweighs any over advertised "contributions".  Most are based on stolen technology anyway.


*(COMMENT)*

I have no idea what this is about.  To be an "outpost" Israel must be subordinate to some center.  That is simply not so.  While there are direct ties to the incite to violence by Muslim Clerics, or calls for Jihad, it was not a religious conflict _(as much as some Arab-Palestinians want it to be)._  And the  Israelis are surely not stealing and great technological secrets from the Arab-Palestinians.



montelatici said:


> You are basically a racist Rocco.  You believe that Europeans should rule over non-Europeans and have a visceral hate of Arabs, Christian and Muslims.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't respond well to attacks directed against me _(personally)_ rather than the position I hold or the content I made. 



montelatici said:


> Israel will revert to native rule eventually, it is just a matter of time.  Whether it turns out to be a Rhodesian or South African result depends on the Israelis.


*(COMMENT)*

Surely we all know that with time, situations evolve.  As we speak, about three-quarters of Israelis population are native born.  They are becoming part of the land.  And vis-versa.  Just as more and more Israelis are born in Israel, fewer and fewer Arab-Palestinians have ties to Israel.  Most refugees are not true refugees but the citizens of another country _(at least once)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Not true.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Be more specific.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

What is not true?

Is it the part where the Ottoman/Turks passed the "title and rights" to the Allied Powers.  (Article 16, Lausanne Treaty)

Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever *over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
Is the Arab-Palestinians rejected participations in the self-governing process.

*Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Be more specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is not true?
> 
> Is it the part where the Ottoman/Turks passed the "title and rights" to the Allied Powers.  (Article 16, Lausanne Treaty)
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever *over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> Is the Arab-Palestinians rejected participations in the self-governing process.
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​*
Everything offered to the Palestinians required them to buy into the colonial project. Of course they would reject that.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> "ARTICLE 22.
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there *should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> *
> Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.



Not true at all.  Why not include the other part of Article 22 that you left out?:



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



Link (since monti left it out): Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Notice that the word Mandatory is capitalized, as then we have the British Mandatory for Palestine which then reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration (thought it was just a declaration as y'all point out) it (the LoN) now made it part of the Mandate (a legal instrument):



> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[37]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briti...legal_instrument)#cite_note-AvalonPalmanda-37

Link: British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cherry picking again . . . .


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Indeed, it had *zero* legal weight.



But it was later incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine which was a legal document.


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Indeed, it had *zero* legal weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was later incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine which was a legal document.
Click to expand...

That depends on how you define a legal document. If Italy and Germany signed a treaty defining a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be a legal document?


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> That depends on how you define a legal document. If Italy and Germany signed a treaty defining a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be a legal document?



So you're implying that the Mandate implemented by the LoN was not legal at all?

You're a funny guy.  You call anything that doesn't fit your narrative 'illegal' yet you scram to any tiny thing on your pretzel that supports your narrative and call it legal, no matter how far fetched and cherry picked it is.


----------



## Vigilante

Words for today.....

*Mod Edit - please review the OP and try to stick to the topic.*


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> That depends on how you define a legal document. If Italy and Germany signed a treaty defining a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be a legal document?



So wait.  Are you saying the entire Mandate system is illegal?  Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are illegitimate?  THAT is quite a remarkable statement.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine ...  Non-Christians, including Jews only returned to the area with the Muslim conquest.



Am I the only one who sees the irony of claiming the Palestinians to be indigenous in the context of a Muslim conquest? 

Am I the only one who sees the irony of denying the claim of the Jewish people in the context of their _return_ to the area?


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Am I the only one who sees the irony of claiming the Palestinians to be indigenous in the context of a Muslim conquest?
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the irony of denying the claim of the Jewish people in the context of their _return_ to the area?


Arguing Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

The British government made  a mistake helping to create a Zionist state in an Arab country.  According to the *UN*...

_...*in disregard of the inherent rights and the wishes of the Palestinian people*, the British Government had given Zionist leaders separate assurances regarding the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine", *an undertaking that sowed the seeds of prolonged conflict in Palestine.*_​
And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.  Especially, a group of  major assholes, who walk around thinking their shit don't stink. 

_*The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine*, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory"._​
Thus making the Mandate invalid.

_During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. * The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights.* They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was *mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community* as the Second World War drew to a close._​ 
Israel exists, but it certainly doesn't have a right to.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Arguing Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.



Really?  In the context of the Arab Muslim conquest?  Then you will have no trouble differentiating for me those who have lived in the land for thousands of years and those who were part of the Arab Muslim conquest.  Feel free to use any of the common distinguishing factors such as:  language, tribal affiliation, customs, legal systems, religious faith, modes of dress, traditional foods, holidays, celebrations of life events, place names, archeological finds, places of worship, myths and stories.  

Keep in mind my purpose here is NOT to reject the rights of Arab Muslim Palestinians to a homeland within the disputed territories.  I believe, absolutely, that they have that right.  But only to counter the rejection of those same rights of the Jewish people who have a FAR better claim to being indigenous to the land by rights of each and every one of those distinguishing factors named above.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.



The Mandate did no such thing.  The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.  

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria.  Jewish people lived in Syria.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?  

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon.  Jewish people lived in Lebanon.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?  

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan.  Jewish people lived in Jordan.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?  

Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land.  Arab Muslims lived in Israel.  

Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on how you define a legal document. If Italy and Germany signed a treaty defining a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be a legal document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wait.  Are you saying the entire Mandate system is illegal?  Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are illegitimate?  THAT is quite a remarkable statement.
Click to expand...


The Mandate system is legal only  when the Mandate instrument and the Mandatory adhere to the principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Mandate respectively.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> The Mandate did no such thing.  The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria.  Jewish people lived in Syria.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon.  Jewish people lived in Lebanon.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan.  Jewish people lived in Jordan.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?
> 
> Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land.  Arab Muslims lived in Israel.
> 
> Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.


The Mandate gave over 50% of the land, to 30% of the population.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  In the context of the Arab Muslim conquest?  Then you will have no trouble differentiating for me those who have lived in the land for thousands of years and those who were part of the Arab Muslim conquest.  Feel free to use any of the common distinguishing factors such as:  language, tribal affiliation, customs, legal systems, religious faith, modes of dress, traditional foods, holidays, celebrations of life events, place names, archeological finds, places of worship, myths and stories.
> 
> Keep in mind my purpose here is NOT to reject the rights of Arab Muslim Palestinians to a homeland within the disputed territories.  I believe, absolutely, that they have that right.  But only to counter the rejection of those same rights of the Jewish people who have a FAR better claim to being indigenous to the land by rights of each and every one of those distinguishing factors named above.
Click to expand...

Here's the breakdown of land ownership in 1947...







Arabs are the overwhelming majority land owners.

As far as a "better claim", you cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

BTW, the territories are not "disputed", they're occupied.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  In the context of the Arab Muslim conquest?  Then you will have no trouble differentiating for me those who have lived in the land for thousands of years and those who were part of the Arab Muslim conquest.  Feel free to use any of the common distinguishing factors such as:  language, tribal affiliation, customs, legal systems, religious faith, modes of dress, traditional foods, holidays, celebrations of life events, place names, archeological finds, places of worship, myths and stories.
> 
> Keep in mind my purpose here is NOT to reject the rights of Arab Muslim Palestinians to a homeland within the disputed territories.  I believe, absolutely, that they have that right.  But only to counter the rejection of those same rights of the Jewish people who have a FAR better claim to being indigenous to the land by rights of each and every one of those distinguishing factors named above.
Click to expand...


Given the inability of the Arabian desert to support large populations, the Arabian component of the "Muslim" armies was reckoned to be very small.  Limited to the equivalent of the field grade officers and perhaps specialized mobile units e.g. cavalry and dromedary mounted units.

The bulk of the Muslim armies were recruited from the local Christian populations, pre-converts or converts.   Muslim success in the Palestine Prima campaign was particularly reliant on local Christians that had issues with their Byzantine rulers. Of note is the fact that Jews that had not converted to Christianity had been  barred from entering the area since Christianity became the Roman State religion.

The inhabitants of Palestine, prior to the European Zionist invasion, were and are the descendants of the same people that had always lived in the area although they may have practiced Canaanite, Samaritan, Roman and other religions, including Judaism in the past. The European Zionists had at best some (less than 50%) Middle Eastern heritage on the male line and hardly any on the female side, as modern genetic studies have confirmed. Southern Europeans in general have more Middle Eastern genetic background than the European Zionists that invaded Palestine.

"*Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts"

Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts | Genetic Literacy Project*


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate did no such thing.  The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria.  Jewish people lived in Syria.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon.  Jewish people lived in Lebanon.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan.  Jewish people lived in Jordan.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?
> 
> Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land.  Arab Muslims lived in Israel.
> 
> Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.
Click to expand...


Taking land from the native inhabitants and giving land in the Middle East to invading Europeans was the hypocrisy and in contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Jews may or may not have a right to a national homeland, but if they do, but not at the expense of another group's home. Setting aside a part of Germany for the Jews may have been appropriate, for example.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot change a political/governmental system when your outside the system or  don't participate.  The Arab Palestinians wanted to play by their rules; marching to a different drummer.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Be more specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is not true?
> 
> Is it the part where the Ottoman/Turks passed the "title and rights" to the Allied Powers.  (Article 16, Lausanne Treaty)
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever *over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> Is the Arab-Palestinians rejected participations in the self-governing process.
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.*​
> Everything offered to the Palestinians required them to buy into the colonial project. Of course they would reject that.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Trying to change things within the system is preferable to armed conflict.  For several centuries, the world had been using diplomatic efforts to solve issues of contention; before they considered war.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

An occupied population is not "within" the system.  In the past British refused to recognize any of the Christian-Muslim Associations as official representatives of the Palestinian people because they would not cooperate with the plan to colonize Palestine. So, the Palestinians never had a voice.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You cannot change a political/governmental system when your outside the system or  don't participate.  The Arab Palestinians wanted to play by their rules; marching to a different drummer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Be more specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is not true?
> 
> Is it the part where the Ottoman/Turks passed the "title and rights" to the Allied Powers.  (Article 16, Lausanne Treaty)
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever *over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> Is the Arab-Palestinians rejected participations in the self-governing process.
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.*​
> Everything offered to the Palestinians required them to buy into the colonial project. Of course they would reject that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trying to change things within the system is preferable to armed conflict.  For several centuries, the world had been using diplomatic efforts to solve issues of contention; before they considered war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Palestinians had to give up their rights before they were allowed to participate in the colonial project. A position of no rights is not good in political participation.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

It is not the British "which refused to recognize" - but - the Arab "which rejected representation."



montelatici said:


> An occupied population is not "within" the system.  In the past British refused to recognize any of the Christian-Muslim Associations as official representatives of the Palestinian people because they would not cooperate with the plan to colonize Palestine. So, the Palestinians never had a voice.


(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian always has an excuse as to why they refused to participate or rejected political opportunities.  When they don't get their way, they cry a little-bit and pick-up their marbles and leave; only to start a fight.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What??



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You cannot change a political/governmental system when your outside the system or  don't participate.  The Arab Palestinians wanted to play by their rules; marching to a different drummer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Be more specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is not true?
> 
> Is it the part where the Ottoman/Turks passed the "title and rights" to the Allied Powers.  (Article 16, Lausanne Treaty)
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever *over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> Is the Arab-Palestinians rejected participations in the self-governing process.
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.*​
> Everything offered to the Palestinians required them to buy into the colonial project. Of course they would reject that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trying to change things within the system is preferable to armed conflict.  For several centuries, the world had been using diplomatic efforts to solve issues of contention; before they considered war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians had to give up their rights before they were allowed to participate in the colonial project. A position of no rights is not good in political participation.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Can you reference something that indicated the Mandatory wanted the Arab-Palestinian to give-up their civil and religious rights?

Sorry, I just never heard of such a demand --- just to be included at the same level as the Jewish Agency.  That would be interesting.  And, if true, a deviation from the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What??
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You cannot change a political/governmental system when your outside the system or  don't participate.  The Arab Palestinians wanted to play by their rules; marching to a different drummer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Be more specific.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What is not true?
> 
> Is it the part where the Ottoman/Turks passed the "title and rights" to the Allied Powers.  (Article 16, Lausanne Treaty)
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever *over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> Is the Arab-Palestinians rejected participations in the self-governing process.
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.* The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.*​
> Everything offered to the Palestinians required them to buy into the colonial project. Of course they would reject that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trying to change things within the system is preferable to armed conflict.  For several centuries, the world had been using diplomatic efforts to solve issues of contention; before they considered war.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians had to give up their rights before they were allowed to participate in the colonial project. A position of no rights is not good in political participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Can you reference something that indicated the Mandatory wanted the Arab-Palestinian to give-up their civil and religious rights?
> 
> Sorry, I just never heard of such a demand --- just to be included at the same level as the Jewish Agency.  That would be interesting.  And, if true, a deviation from the Mandate.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just never heard of such a demand​
Of course you haven't. Israeli propaganda will not tell you such a thing.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> It is not the British "which refused to recognize" - but - the Arab "which rejected representation."
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> An occupied population is not "within" the system.  In the past British refused to recognize any of the Christian-Muslim Associations as official representatives of the Palestinian people because they would not cooperate with the plan to colonize Palestine. So, the Palestinians never had a voice.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> The Arab-Palestinian always has an excuse as to why they refused to participate or rejected political opportunities.  When they don't get their way, they cry a little-bit and pick-up their marbles and leave; only to start a fight.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Now you are just being silly with your childish analogies and are ignorant of the facts.  From the beginning, the British refused to accept the Muslim-Christian Associations as representatives.  It began in the first response by Churchill to the Palestinian Delegation's letter to the Colonial Office in 1922.  The British excuse was while the accepted the Jewish Agency's right to represent the Zionists, the machinery of representation as utilized by the Christians and Muslims, was not acceptable to the British.  It was clearly a game the British were playing to prevent the native people from having a voice, because their voice would be a source of resistance to the colonization of Palestine by the Europeans.

"2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

So how can it be politely said that you are full of crap? Saying you are mistaken is an understatement.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Arabs are the overwhelming majority land owners.



The ethnicity of land owners does not confer sovereignty over territory.  Is San Francisco the sovereign territory of China?  Is a portion of Morocco the sovereign territory of Israel because Jews lived there in large numbers?  Is Syria part of Palestine because a large number of Palestinians live there?  Are all the "settlements" Israeli territory because the residents are Jewish?  

The Mandate gave a portion of the Mandate territory to the Jewish people in recognition of their historical national homeland, just as the Mandate gave other portions to other peoples.   Why so many people seem to have a problem with the Jewish people having a homeland is beyond me.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs are the overwhelming majority land owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ethnicity of land owners does not confer sovereignty over territory.  Is San Francisco the sovereign territory of China?  Is a portion of Morocco the sovereign territory of Israel because Jews lived there in large numbers?  Is Syria part of Palestine because a large number of Palestinians live there?  Are all the "settlements" Israeli territory because the residents are Jewish?
> 
> The Mandate gave a portion of the Mandate territory to the Jewish people in recognition of their historical national homeland, just as the Mandate gave other portions to other peoples.   Why so many people seem to have a problem with the Jewish people having a homeland is beyond me.
Click to expand...


The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal.  Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under whose authority the Mandates were created.  The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories of the former Axis powers.  95% of the native inhabitants of Palestine were Muslims and Christians in 1921. The Jews were European settlers.  Instead of benefiting from the Mandate, the native inhabitants were dispossessed.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Jews may or may not have a right to a national homeland, but if they do, but not at the expense of another group's home. Setting aside a part of Germany for the Jews may have been appropriate, for example.



So, its okay to re-constitute a homeland for the Jewish people where Germans live and remove sovereign territory from Germany, but its not okay to re-constitute a homeland for the Jewish people on their actual ancestral territorial homeland where Palestinians live?   

How does that make sense?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal.  Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under whose authority the Mandates were created.  The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories of the former Axis powers.  95% of the native inhabitants of Palestine were Muslims and Christians in 1921. The Jews were European settlers.  Instead of benefiting from the Mandate, the native inhabitants were dispossessed.



The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories.  One of those groups of inhabitants were the Jewish people.  It really is that simple.  There is no legal or moral reason whatsoever that the Jewish people should be the only group of inhabitants who must be prevented from having a national self-determination.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews may or may not have a right to a national homeland, but if they do, but not at the expense of another group's home. Setting aside a part of Germany for the Jews may have been appropriate, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, its okay to re-constitute a homeland for the Jewish people where Germans live and remove sovereign territory from Germany, but its not okay to re-constitute a homeland for the Jewish people on their actual ancestral territorial homeland where Palestinians live?
> 
> How does that make sense?
Click to expand...


Well, the Germans caused the Holocaust, why should the native Palestinians have been dispossessed to make room for Europeans of a particular religion?  The European Jews had/have less Middle Eastern ancestry than most southern Europeans.  They were genetically Europeans that practiced Judaism.  The Palestinians are descendants of the people that had always lived in the Middle East.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Well, the Germans caused the Holocaust, why should the native Palestinians have been dispossessed to make room for Europeans of a particular religion?



You can't be dispossessed of something you never had.  There has never been a national, political entity for Palestinian self-determination.  (Which is not to say there shouldn't be now -- there should).  (Arab Muslim) Palestinians never had sovereignty over territory and therefore can't be dispossessed of sovereignty.  So your claim to dispossession is actually a claim that Arab Muslims have held sovereignty over the territory in the past and thus Arab Muslims (and only Arab Muslims) can have sovereignty over the land in the present and future.

While asserting this, you deny that the Jewish people, who actually have had a national, political entity for self-determination and who actually were forceably dispossessed of their homeland, have no rights to re-constitute that homeland.  The reason you give for this is that the Jewish people have lost their ethnicity in the dispossession and have become Europeans.  Does that mean you also agree that those Palestinians who no longer live in the territories in question have lost their ethnicity in the conflict and are now Jordanians or Syrians with no rights to self-determination as Palestinians?  Does ethnic cleansing lead to a loss of rights and a ineligibility to sovereignty? 





> The European Jews had/have less Middle Eastern ancestry than most southern Europeans.



Using genetics as a basis for sovereignty or self-determination, or worse -- to REMOVE rights to sovereignty and self-determination smacks of a racist doctrine along the lines of Nazism's racial purity.  Disgusting.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Germans caused the Holocaust, why should the native Palestinians have been dispossessed to make room for Europeans of a particular religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be dispossessed of something you never had.  There has never been a national, political entity for Palestinian self-determination.  (Which is not to say there shouldn't be now -- there should).  (Arab Muslim) Palestinians never had sovereignty over territory and therefore can't be dispossessed of sovereignty.  So your claim to dispossession is actually a claim that Arab Muslims have held sovereignty over the territory in the past and thus Arab Muslims (and only Arab Muslims) can have sovereignty over the land in the present and future.
> 
> While asserting this, you deny that the Jewish people, who actually have had a national, political entity for self-determination and who actually were forceably dispossessed of their homeland, have no rights to re-constitute that homeland.  The reason you give for this is that the Jewish people have lost their ethnicity in the dispossession and have become Europeans.  Does that mean you also agree that those Palestinians who no longer live in the territories in question have lost their ethnicity in the conflict and are now Jordanians or Syrians with no rights to self-determination as Palestinians?  Does ethnic cleansing lead to a loss of rights and a ineligibility to sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The European Jews had/have less Middle Eastern ancestry than most southern Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using genetics as a basis for sovereignty or self-determination, or worse -- to REMOVE rights to sovereignty and self-determination smacks of a racist doctrine along the lines of Nazism's racial purity.  Disgusting.
Click to expand...


Well of course the native inhabitants "had" the land they land they owned and lived on.  The Europeans that colonized Palestine never had sovereignty over Palestine. They were Europeans.  None had set foot in Palestine.  

You are all over the place, first you claim that Europeans claiming an ethnicity had the right to remove the native inhabitants because of this ethnicity, then you claim genetics smacks of Nazism.

It was simply a group of Europeans with the help of other Europeans taking land from the native inhabitants as the last European colonial project.  That's what happened. Anything else is a bunch of bullshit.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> first you claim that Europeans claiming an ethnicity had the right to remove the native inhabitants because of this ethnicity




Where did I claim that?  No one is being removed from territory nor am I calling for that.  What I am claiming is that BOTH groups of native inhabitants have a right to sovereignty.  You, on the other hand, are claiming that only ONE group of native inhabitants have a right to sovereignty.


----------



## montelatici

How could the European Jews have been native inhabitants when they were born and lived in Europe?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I guess you did not read what I posted.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the British "which refused to recognize" - but - the Arab "which rejected representation."​
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just being silly with your childish analogies and are ignorant of the facts.  From the beginning, the British refused to accept the Muslim-Christian Associations as representatives.
> 
> So how can it be politely said that you are full of crap? Saying you are mistaken is an understatement.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I think we are seeing the events from different perspective.   I view the First Attempt this way:



			
				[B said:
			
		

> [/B]Political History of Palestine under British Administration]
> 
> *The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23.*​16. Shortly after the establishment of the civil administration, the High commissioner had formed a nominated Advisory Council, consisting of 10 British officials and 10 Palestinians (4 Moslem Arabs, 3 Christian Arabs and 3 Jews). Two years later, in August, 1922, an order-in-Council was issued providing for the creation of a Legislative Council. This body was to consist of the High commissioner and 22 other members, 10 official and 12 elected; of the elected members, 8 were to be Moslems, 2 Christians and 2 Jews.
> 
> 17. A draft of the Order-in-Council had previously been communicated to a Palestine Arab delegation in London. The Delegation, while making various detailed criticisms of the proposals, at the same time declined to enter into discussions involving acceptance of the Balfour Declaration. They maintained that the proposals for a Legislative council were not in conformity with paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, according to which -
> 
> 
> “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.”
> 
> The Arab Delegation consequently declared that “no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable”.*
> 
> 18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, *but not Palestine*, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.
> 
> 
> “There is no question,” the Colonial Officer continued, “of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty’s Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies…..If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill (then Colonial Secretary) Has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British government to the Jewish people. It follows that the principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were ell advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria.”







			
				[B said:
			
		

> [/B]Political History of Palestine under British Administration]
> 20. Despite the unfavourable reception given by the Arabs to the proposal for a Legislative Council, elections were held early in 1923. The Arab leaders organised a boycott of the primary elections, with the result that only 107 Moslem secondary electors were chosen out of a possible total of 663, and only 19 Christians out of 59. The elections had failed in their object of producing an accurate reflection of the opinion of the whole population. They were therefore annulled by an amending Order-in-Council of May , 1923, under which the High Commissioner was temporarily to retain a nominated Advisory Council.
> 
> 21. The High Commissioner wishing the Advisory Council to approximate as closely as possible to the abortive Legislative council, proposed to reconstitute it on the lines suggested for the latter body, that is to say with 10 officials and 8 Moslem, 2 Christians and 2 Jewish Palestinians. But of the 10 Arabs whom he nominated, 7 withdrew their acceptance under political pressure. The High Commissioner did not wish to replace them with men of less standing. It thus proved impossible to constitute a representative Advisory Council.
> 
> 22. *Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government*. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> SOURCE:  A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947



You may challenge me all your want; but I think you are a bit myopic in your view.   But you are intitled to your interpretation of history.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> How could the European Jews have been native inhabitants when they were born and lived in Europe?



The same way a man born in Egypt can become the leader of the Palestinian people?

Let's just leave aside the Jewish people in the diaspora for the moment.  There were communities of Jewish people living in Palestine at the end of WWI.  Do those communities have the right, conceptually, to self-determination?  Why or why not?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could the European Jews have been native inhabitants when they were born and lived in Europe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way a man born in Egypt can become the leader of the Palestinian people?
> 
> Let's just leave aside the Jewish people in the diaspora for the moment.  There were communities of Jewish people living in Palestine at the end of WWI.  Do those communities have the right, conceptually, to self-determination?  Why or why not?
Click to expand...

They did. They became Palestinian citizens with equal rights to their Muslim and Christian brothers.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal.  Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under whose authority the Mandates were created.  The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories of the former Axis powers.  95% of the native inhabitants of Palestine were Muslims and Christians in 1921. The Jews were European settlers.  Instead of benefiting from the Mandate, the native inhabitants were dispossessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories.  One of those groups of inhabitants were the Jewish people.  It really is that simple.  There is no legal or moral reason whatsoever that the Jewish people should be the only group of inhabitants who must be prevented from having a national self-determination.
Click to expand...


There were hardly any Jews in the area, less than 5% of the population..  Of the few Jews that were there most were recent arrivals from Europe. Not native inhabitants.There was no legal or moral reason that 5% of the population most of which was not native to the area should be given a separate state while 95% of the population should have been evicted and dispossessed.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I think this is incorrect.



montelatici said:


> The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal.  Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations,


*(COMMENT)*

First the Mandate did not take any land.  

The Covenant did not prohibit anything the Allied Powers did.  But it would be a Mistake to think that the 1948 establishment of Israel was taken under the authority of the mandate.

The implementation of the Mandate was at the direction of the League of Nations to which the Covenant derives it authority.  And the authors may interpret the intent differently form you.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I think this is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal.  Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First the Mandate did not take any land.
> 
> The Covenant did not prohibit anything the Allied Powers did.  But it would be a Mistake to think that the 1948 establishment of Israel was taken under the authority of the mandate.
> 
> The implementation of the Mandate was at the direction of the League of Nations to which the Covenant derives it authority.  And the authors may interpret the intent differently form you.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Mandate had no authority to give or take any land and it did not. The same for the UN.

The Mandate did, however, create/allow the the great disproportion of power that allowed the Zionist military free hand to move across Palestine expelling virtually unarmed civilians. It was a cake walk.

The implementation of the Mandate was at the direction of the League of Nations...​
Indeed, and what a disaster it was!

Interpret that.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal.  Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under whose authority the Mandates were created.  The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories of the former Axis powers.  95% of the native inhabitants of Palestine were Muslims and Christians in 1921. The Jews were European settlers.  Instead of benefiting from the Mandate, the native inhabitants were dispossessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories.  One of those groups of inhabitants were the Jewish people.  It really is that simple.  There is no legal or moral reason whatsoever that the Jewish people should be the only group of inhabitants who must be prevented from having a national self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were hardly any Jews in the area, less than 5% of the population..  Of the few Jews that were there most were recent arrivals from Europe. Not native inhabitants.There was no legal or moral reason that 5% of the population most of which was not native to the area should be given a separate state while 95% of the population should have been evicted and dispossessed.
Click to expand...


Do you apply that same test of "nativeness" to Palestinians?  How can you tell which Palestinians are natives?  How recent does one's families arrival in the territories have to be in order to be considered non-native? 

Is your test related to majority populations?  Are you arguing that only the majority population has the right to self-determination in a territory?  Or do you offer consideration to minorities?

When determining ratios of populations, do you consider size of territory?  If the Jewish people have a large community in, say, Jerusalem, would they have the right to self-determination in Jerusalem? 

Finally, if the cause of the low population of people or the cause of the lack of nativeness is ethnic cleansing, would you consider that a valid way of preventing self-determination for a peoples?  Should a peoples have the right of return to a place they have been ethnically cleansed from?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal.  Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under whose authority the Mandates were created.  The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories of the former Axis powers.  95% of the native inhabitants of Palestine were Muslims and Christians in 1921. The Jews were European settlers.  Instead of benefiting from the Mandate, the native inhabitants were dispossessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories.  One of those groups of inhabitants were the Jewish people.  It really is that simple.  There is no legal or moral reason whatsoever that the Jewish people should be the only group of inhabitants who must be prevented from having a national self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were hardly any Jews in the area, less than 5% of the population..  Of the few Jews that were there most were recent arrivals from Europe. Not native inhabitants.There was no legal or moral reason that 5% of the population most of which was not native to the area should be given a separate state while 95% of the population should have been evicted and dispossessed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you apply that same test of "nativeness" to Palestinians?  How can you tell which Palestinians are natives?  How recent does one's families arrival in the territories have to be in order to be considered non-native?
> 
> Is your test related to majority populations?  Are you arguing that only the majority population has the right to self-determination in a territory?  Or do you offer consideration to minorities?
> 
> When determining ratios of populations, do you consider size of territory?  If the Jewish people have a large community in, say, Jerusalem, would they have the right to self-determination in Jerusalem?
> 
> Finally, if the cause of the low population of people or the cause of the lack of nativeness is ethnic cleansing, would you consider that a valid way of preventing self-determination for a peoples?  Should a peoples have the right of return to a place they have been ethnically cleansed from?
Click to expand...

You people are getting off on many tangents. That question was answered long ago.
----------------------------
The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​----------------------------
Race, religion, length of time in the country are all irrelevant. The same citizenship was applied to all.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

And you don't seem to know what "Palestinian" means in "Palestinian Citizenship."

It does not mean you have your own little country; or are a citizen of your own little country.



P F Tinmore said:


> You people are getting off on many tangents. That question was answered long ago.
> ----------------------------
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​----------------------------
> Race, religion, length of time in the country are all irrelevant. The same citizenship was applied to all.



*(COMMENT)*

Palestinian was not, under the Ottoman Empire, and was not, after the Ottoman Empire, its own nationality.

It means that the habitual residents, in the territory to which the mandate applies, shall become citizens of the government appointed by the Mandate.

Palestine, used in this scene, is defined by the Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> And you don't seem to know what "Palestinian" means in "Palestinian Citizenship."
> 
> It does not mean you have your own little country; or are a citizen of your own little country.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are getting off on many tangents. That question was answered long ago.
> ----------------------------
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​----------------------------
> Race, religion, length of time in the country are all irrelevant. The same citizenship was applied to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestinian was not, under the Ottoman Empire, and was not, after the Ottoman Empire, its own nationality.
> 
> It means that the habitual residents, in the territory to which the mandate applies, shall become citizens of the government appointed by the Mandate.
> 
> Palestine, used in this scene, is defined by the Order in Council.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You've been given this so many times.



P F Tinmore said:


> Link?


*(LINK)*

PART I.





PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."



The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You've been given this so many times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(LINK)*
> 
> PART I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRELIMINARY.
> Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> 
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

That was 1922. Palestine did not exist until 1924.


----------



## montelatici

The automatic, _i_pso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

If you read this, you will see that it is issued by the British High Commissioner.


"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine. 
Palestine Order in Council (1922).



montelatici said:


> The automatic, _i_pso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”
> 
> View attachment 57526


*(COMMENT)*

The Government of Palestine was that established by the Palestine Order in Council; and not the habitually resident in the territory of Palestine.

This Citizenship Paper is a work product of the Mandatory selected by the Allied Powers to the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers.

I doubt -- whether but a very few -- Arab Palestinians had anything to do with Certification.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

You have a habit of ignoring fact, written in plain English.  Even when the original source document is presented.  The question is, why bother responding to a pathological bullshitter?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

In 1925, who was the "Government of Palestine"?



montelatici said:


> You have a habit of ignoring fact, written in plain English.  Even when the original source document is presented.  The question is, why bother responding to a pathological bullshitter?
> 
> View attachment 57533


*(COMMENT)*

Well it cannot be the Arab Palestinians.  They declined to participate in programs and processes leading to self-government.

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory Power headed by the High Commissioner.

"The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine.
1._Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?
_
REPORT
BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF
PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN
FOR THE YEAR
1925
_
SECTION III.
*QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.*
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME._​_
_

_A_. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​III.--JEWISH AGENCY.​1._Q. When and in what manner has the Jewish Agency been officially recognized?_

_A._ There is nothing to add to the reply in the Report for 1923.​2._Q. Has this Agency given any advice to the Administration in the past year? If so, in what form and in what connection?_

_A._ The Palestine Committee of the Agency (Palestine Zionist Executive) and the Head Office of the Zionist Organization have been given special opportunity of expressing their views on the draft Passport and Immigration Ordinances and Regulations as well as on questions affecting the organization of the Jewish Community which are still engaging the attention of the Government of Palestine.​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

What part of the following sentence do you not understand:

"Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”

The Christians and Muslims were Turkish subjects, most the Jews were citizens of various European nations.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

And just what part of this do't you understand.

PART I.




PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.



montelatici said:


> What part of the following sentence do you not understand:
> 
> "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”
> 
> The Christians and Muslims were Turkish subjects, most the Jews were citizens of various European nations.


*(COMMENT)*

There was no Arab-Palestinian controlled territory called Palestine.  The Palestine mentioned in the Citizenship Order is that of the territory covered by the mandate; governed by the High Commissioner.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Again, what do you not understand with respect to the following statement:

"Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Again, what do you not understand with respect to the following statement:
> 
> "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”



They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al

What is a "Palestinian Citizen?"



montelatici said:


> Again, what do you not understand with respect to the following statement:
> 
> "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”



What does Palestine mean?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

As stated, the territory of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what do you not understand with respect to the following statement:
> 
> "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine.
Click to expand...

With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:

“(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
(2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what do you not understand with respect to the following statement:
> 
> "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
Click to expand...


So the formerly Turkish citizens were definitely not British.  Not sure why you would bring this up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what do you not understand with respect to the following statement:
> 
> "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regard to nationality of the inhabitants of mandated territories, in general, the Council of the League of Nations adopted the following resolution on 23 April 1923:
> 
> “(1) The status of the native inhabitants of a Mandated territory is distinct from that of the nationals of the Mandatory Power....
> (2) The native inhabitants of a Mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power by means of the protection extended to them…”92​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the formerly Turkish citizens were definitely not British.  Not sure why you would bring this up.
Click to expand...

Because you said:

They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine.​
That is not true.

The Mandate was not a place. It was not a country. It had no land or borders. It had no citizens.

It was a temporarily assigned administration to assist the people until they could stand alone i.e. create an independent state.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Shusha, you are running into something that our friend P F Tinmore uses quite effectively to derail a true thought which he does not want to be the focus.

If you use the word "Mandate," as was often used in the 1920, as the short title for the territorial government (official order or commission to form the Administration) he will speer you with this response. 

Similarly, if you use the term "Palestine" to mean the territory to which the Mandate (authority) was applied; he will use this as quasi-evidence of recognition of a independent state or a territory to which the Arab-Palestinian has special rights.  

Basically, what you said was technically wrong -- but completely understood as to your meaning. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the formerly Turkish citizens were definitely not British.  Not sure why you would bring this up.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you said:
> 
> "They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine."​That is not true.
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was not a country. It had no land or borders. It had no citizens.
> 
> It was a temporarily assigned administration to assist the people until they could stand alone i.e. create an independent state.
Click to expand...


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Palestine was a Class A Mandate, as such it received provisional statehood with the signing of the Covenant of the United Nations.  The Mandate was merely a tool to transform provisional statehood to full statehood for the inhabitants of the former Axis and specifically former Turkish territories with respect to Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> That is not true. The Mandate was not a place. It was not a country. It had no land or borders. It had no citizens.
Click to expand...


Oh please.  Rocco is correct, my meaning was perfectly plain.  Sure, technically, I should have said "...became citizens living in the geographical area known as Palestine (not to be misinterpreted as or confused with the potential future State which is also named Palestine but has an entirely different meaning) under the temporarily assigned administration by the British government known as the Mandate for Palestine which held territory in trust for the Jewish people until they could stand alone and create an independent state,"  but that does seem a bit cumbersome, don't you think?  Especially since my meaning was perfectly clear.




> It was a temporarily assigned administration to assist the people until they could stand alone i.e. create an independent state.


You missed a very important word there, Tinmore:  *Jewish.*  "It was a temporarily assigned administration to assist the JEWISH people until they could stand alone i.e. create an independent state."

And your argument that the Mandate was not a place, had no land and no borders and no citizens is a silly word salad tossed to negate the rights of the Jewish people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> That is not true. The Mandate was not a place. It was not a country. It had no land or borders. It had no citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Rocco is correct, my meaning was perfectly plain.  Sure, technically, I should have said "...became citizens living in the geographical area known as Palestine (not to be misinterpreted as or confused with the potential future State which is also named Palestine but has an entirely different meaning) under the temporarily assigned administration by the British government known as the Mandate for Palestine which held territory in trust for the Jewish people until they could stand alone and create an independent state,"  but that does seem a bit cumbersome, don't you think?  Especially since my meaning was perfectly clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a temporarily assigned administration to assist the people until they could stand alone i.e. create an independent state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed a very important word there, Tinmore:  *Jewish.*  "It was a temporarily assigned administration to assist the JEWISH people until they could stand alone i.e. create an independent state."
> 
> And your argument that the Mandate was not a place, had no land and no borders and no citizens is a silly word salad tossed to negate the rights of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

the Mandate for Palestine which held territory in trust for the Jewish people​
It seems strange then that only about 5% of the original citizens were Jews.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> It seems strange then that only about 5% of the original citizens were Jews.



The "original" citizens, going back 4000 years (and further if you include all the tribal wars) were ALL Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange then that only about 5% of the original citizens were Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "original" citizens, going back 4000 years (and further if you include all the tribal wars) were ALL Jews.
Click to expand...

Most of the people granted Palestinian citizenship in 1925 were Muslims and Christians. There were no citizens before that.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange then that only about 5% of the original citizens were Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "original" citizens, going back 4000 years (and further if you include all the tribal wars) were ALL Jews.
Click to expand...


That's crazy. Even the Jewish bible claims the Jews weren't the "original" citizens. The land had Canaanites, Philistines and others living there before the Jews arrived.  Plus claiming a bunch of Europeans were somehow citizens of Palestine over the native people living there is ridiculous.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange then that only about 5% of the original citizens were Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "original" citizens, going back 4000 years (and further if you include all the tribal wars) were ALL Jews.
Click to expand...


No. There were certainly "Judeans", but they formed a minority in an otherwise diverse and cosmopolitan ethnic mix of peoples. "Judaism" was one of many religions practiced by the "elite" population of the region from time to time, but except for short periods of dominance, the locals worshipped local deities. It wasn't until 200 years after the Arab conquest that the locals had converted to Islam, which became the almost universal religion in the area until the 13th century when Judaism enjoyed a revival after Moshe Ben Nahman set up a synagogue in Jerusalem.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> In 1925, who was the "Government of Palestine"?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a habit of ignoring fact, written in plain English.  Even when the original source document is presented.  The question is, why bother responding to a pathological bullshitter?
> 
> View attachment 57533
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well it cannot be the Arab Palestinians.  They declined to participate in programs and processes leading to self-government.
> 
> The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory Power headed by the High Commissioner.
> 
> "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> "The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine.
> 1._Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?
> _
> REPORT
> BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
> TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
> ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF
> PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN
> FOR THE YEAR
> 1925
> _
> SECTION III.
> *QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
> WITH BRIEF REPLIES.*
> I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME._​_
> _
> 
> _A_. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).
> 
> The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​III.--JEWISH AGENCY.​1._Q. When and in what manner has the Jewish Agency been officially recognized?_
> 
> _A._ There is nothing to add to the reply in the Report for 1923.​2._Q. Has this Agency given any advice to the Administration in the past year? If so, in what form and in what connection?_
> 
> _A._ The Palestine Committee of the Agency (Palestine Zionist Executive) and the Head Office of the Zionist Organization have been given special opportunity of expressing their views on the draft Passport and Immigration Ordinances and Regulations as well as on questions affecting the organization of the Jewish Community which are still engaging the attention of the Government of Palestine.​Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

And what is the relevance to all that? Britain fucked up so bad that they left accomplishing nothing. All of that is moot.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ceased to be citizens of Turkey and became citizens of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> That is not true. The Mandate was not a place. It was not a country. It had no land or borders. It had no citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Rocco is correct, my meaning was perfectly plain.  Sure, technically, I should have said "...became citizens living in the geographical area known as Palestine (not to be misinterpreted as or confused with the potential future State which is also named Palestine but has an entirely different meaning) under the temporarily assigned administration by the British government known as the Mandate for Palestine which held territory in trust for the Jewish people until they could stand alone and create an independent state,"  but that does seem a bit cumbersome, don't you think?  Especially since my meaning was perfectly clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a temporarily assigned administration to assist the people until they could stand alone i.e. create an independent state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed a very important word there, Tinmore:  *Jewish.*  "It was a temporarily assigned administration to assist the JEWISH people until they could stand alone i.e. create an independent state."
> 
> And your argument that the Mandate was not a place, had no land and no borders and no citizens is a silly word salad tossed to negate the rights of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> The ethnicity of land owners does not confer sovereignty over territory.


But land ownership does.  You cannot come into my neighborhood, go up and knock on my door and tell me that's your house now, because God told you so.  Or because your great great great great grandfather used to live there.




Shusha said:


> Are all the "settlements" Israeli territory because the residents are Jewish?


The settlements are illegal.  Period.  And the white trash psycho settlers that live there, will eventually have to leave.  They're not even settlers, they are more like Israeli insurgents.




Shusha said:


> The Mandate gave a portion of the Mandate territory to the Jewish people in recognition of their historical national homeland, just as the Mandate gave other portions to other peoples.


And they should of only got 30% of the land, since they were only 30% of the population.




Shusha said:


> Why so many people seem to have a problem with the Jewish people having a homeland is beyond me.


It's because of what Zionists did when they got here...

_"...*the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives* ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. * They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination..."*
  - *Ahad Ha'am*_​
That's why.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Where did I claim that?  No one is being removed from territory...


Tell that to the over 700,000 Arabs who were driven out of their homes by Jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.


----------



## abu afak

I covered alot of this whole concept/String 5 Years ago, including Brillo-Greasy's MIsunderstandings/Misrepresentations.
slightly modified for updated maps, relevence, etc.

Myth #1..... Israel is "Stolen Land" | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum






*77% of British Mandate 'Palestine' was lopped and made Jordan, no Jews allowed.*
(Contradicting British and League of Nations promises)








*Jordan is 70% 'Palestinian'.
Leaving the other 23% divided roughly 13-10 for the Jews.

Meaning the Arabs aka Palestinians got 87% of Mandate Palestine.
(the Pink AND Red Areas)

And ½ of the Jews 13% was the Negev Desert. (lower ½ the light Blue Area above)
So Jews really got about 6% of the usable land of the Original Mandate.
AND unlike in The surrounding states... Arabs still live in/make up 20% of Current Israel's population within that land.
So 1/3 of the People: Jews, got 27% of the Usable land: the thought-useless wasteland Negev thrown in for size viability.

2/3 of what became Israel was State Land (miri, belonging to the emir), passing from the Ottomans, to the British, to the Jews; owned by NO Arab.
This Includes the Half alone of Israel that was/Is the Negev Desert.*
-





-

*Yes, the lower half of that little that red spot/Israel- is the Negev Desert, State Land under the Ottomans, owned by No Arab.* (and about 15-20% more that was also state land). *And 20% of the population of the upper half of the Red Dot- is Arab.*
abu afak/mbig
-​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Response to Shusha's post:

So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation' | Page 26 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Nice video except there was no mention of the Nakba. He did mention that people who have never been to the holy land and have no ancestors from there should "return" to Israel simply because they share a religion. As stated in my video, Judaism is a religion not a nationality. The right to a nationality under international law does not apply to religious groups. It only applies to people who are tied to the land by habitual residence, or what the Montevideo Conference calls a permanent population. Of course this does apply to Jews who have lived there for centuries. They were recognized as Palestinians and received Palestinian citizenship just like everyone else who normally lived there.

Of course the Nakba that Netenyahu didn't mention was the web of ethnic cleansing, killing, theft, and lies that represent the creation and continued existence of Israel.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Response to Shusha's post:
> 
> He did mention that people who have never been to the holy land and have no ancestors from there should "return" to Israel simply because they share a religion. As stated in my video, Judaism is a religion not a nationality. The right to a nationality under international law does not apply to religious groups. It only applies to people who are tied to the land by habitual residence, or what the Montevideo Conference calls a permanent population.



You seem to have missed the whole point of the video.  The Jewish people, the people of Israel, ARE a nationality.  The Jewish people, the  people of Israel, are tied to the land.  The Jewish people, the people of Israel, were the permanent population.  It is our homeland, our history, our birthright.  (It may be other people's land, and history and birthright.)  But it is also OURS.

The whole point of your video is to claim an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to the homeland from which a group was forceably removed -- to claim an absolute universal right to return to your homeland through the generations even if you, personally, have never been to that homeland.  The Mandate for Palestine is rooted in this concept -- the right to re-constitute your nation in the place of your origin.  

It is immoral to claim a right for one people while simultaneously denying it to another.  It doesn't matter what excuse you give or how you argue it or how you frame it.  The concept of an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to your place of origin and homeland is the same whether you are speaking of Palestinians or Jews or any other people who have experienced a "Nakba".  Excluding any group from having that concept apply to them is immoral and wrong.


----------



## abu afak

P F Tinmore said:


> ... *As stated in my video, Judaism is a religion not a nationality. The right to a nationality under international law does not apply to religious groups.* It only applies to people who are tied to the land by habitual residence, or what the Montevideo Conference calls a permanent population. Of course this does apply to Jews who have lived there for centuries....


Except, as you well know, Jews are Not 'just a religion'.
How Dishonest of you after all these years/discussions.
Jews are an Ethnoreligious group, People and a NATION.

Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The *Jews..*, also known as the *Jewish People*, are an ethnoreligious group[11] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.[12][13]
*Jewish ethnicity, Nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish Nation,*[14][15][16] while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.

The Jews trace their ethnogenesis to the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel.[17] The discovery of the Merneptah Stele confirms the existence of the people of Israel in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE...
[.....]​Ker-SPLAT! Tinhead.
-


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Response to Shusha's post:
> 
> He did mention that people who have never been to the holy land and have no ancestors from there should "return" to Israel simply because they share a religion. As stated in my video, Judaism is a religion not a nationality. The right to a nationality under international law does not apply to religious groups. It only applies to people who are tied to the land by habitual residence, or what the Montevideo Conference calls a permanent population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have missed the whole point of the video.  The Jewish people, the people of Israel, ARE a nationality.  The Jewish people, the  people of Israel, are tied to the land.  The Jewish people, the people of Israel, were the permanent population.  It is our homeland, our history, our birthright.  (It may be other people's land, and history and birthright.)  But it is also OURS.
> 
> The whole point of your video is to claim an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to the homeland from which a group was forceably removed -- to claim an absolute universal right to return to your homeland through the generations even if you, personally, have never been to that homeland.  The Mandate for Palestine is rooted in this concept -- the right to re-constitute your nation in the place of your origin.
> 
> It is immoral to claim a right for one people while simultaneously denying it to another.  It doesn't matter what excuse you give or how you argue it or how you frame it.  The concept of an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to your place of origin and homeland is the same whether you are speaking of Palestinians or Jews or any other people who have experienced a "Nakba".  Excluding any group from having that concept apply to them is immoral and wrong.
Click to expand...

It is immoral to claim a right for one people while simultaneously denying it to another.​
And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.

The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> I covered alot of this whole concept/String 5 Years ago, including Brillo-Greasy's MIsunderstandings/Misrepresentations.
> slightly modified for updated maps, relevence, etc.
> 
> Myth #1..... Israel is "Stolen Land" | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *77% of British Mandate 'Palestine' was lopped and made Jordan, no Jews allowed.*
> (Contradicting British and League of Nations promises)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jordan is 70% 'Palestinian'.
> Leaving the other 23% divided roughly 13-10 for the Jews.
> 
> Meaning the Arabs aka Palestinians got 87% of Mandate Palestine.
> (the Pink AND Red Areas)
> 
> And ½ of the Jews 13% was the Negev Desert. (lower ½ the light Blue Area above)
> So Jews really got about 6% of the usable land of the Original Mandate.
> AND unlike in The surrounding states... Arabs still live in/make up 20% of Current Israel's population within that land.
> So 1/3 of the People: Jews, got 27% of the Usable land: the thought-useless wasteland Negev thrown in for size viability.
> 
> 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land (miri, belonging to the emir), passing from the Ottomans, to the British, to the Jews; owned by NO Arab.
> This Includes the Half alone of Israel that was/Is the Negev Desert.*
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> *Yes, the lower half of that little that red spot/Israel- is the Negev Desert, State Land under the Ottomans, owned by No Arab.* (and about 15-20% more that was also state land). *And 20% of the population of the upper half of the Red Dot- is Arab.*
> abu afak/mbig
> -​



Trans-Jordan was added to the Mandate for Palestine but was a completely different territory from the outset and destined to repay the Hashemites and their followers (Bedouins not Palestinians), who had supported the British against the Turks in the Hejaz (where Mecca is located) during WW1 after they lost the Hejaz to King Saud.

Your post is just a bunch of Zionist propaganda with no basis in fact. Even the note to the Mandate describes Trans Jordan as a separate territory whose border is the eastern boundary of *PALESTINE, *a separate territory. Clearly, if Trans Jordan's border was the eastern border of Palestine, it could not possibly have been considered Palestine.


----------



## abu afak

montelatici said:


> Trans-Jordan was added to the Mandate for Palestine but was a completely different territory from the outset and destined to repay the Hashemites and their followers (Bedouins not Palestinians), who had supported the British against the Turks in the Hejaz (where Mecca is located) during WW1 after they lost the Hejaz to King Saud.
> 
> Your post is just a bunch of Zionist propaganda with no basis in fact. Even the note to the Mandate describes Trans Jordan as a separate territory whose border is the eastern boundary of *PALESTINE, *a separate territory. Clearly, if Trans Jordan's border was the eastern border of Palestine, it could not possibly have been considered Palestine.


"Zionst Propaganda"?
TAKE YOUR PICK AKHMED!

mandate for palestine - Google Search

I just used the First of Many/MOST.
-


----------



## P F Tinmore

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trans-Jordan was added to the Mandate for Palestine but was a completely different territory from the outset and destined to repay the Hashemites and their followers (Bedouins not Palestinians), who had supported the British against the Turks in the Hejaz (where Mecca is located) during WW1 after they lost the Hejaz to King Saud.
> 
> Your post is just a bunch of Zionist propaganda with no basis in fact. Even the note to the Mandate describes Trans Jordan as a separate territory whose border is the eastern boundary of *PALESTINE, *a separate territory. Clearly, if Trans Jordan's border was the eastern border of Palestine, it could not possibly have been considered Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> "Zionst Propaganda"?
> TAKE YOUR PICK AKHMED!
> 
> mandate for palestine - Google Search
> 
> I just used the First of Many/MOST.
> -
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Response to Shusha's post:
> 
> He did mention that people who have never been to the holy land and have no ancestors from there should "return" to Israel simply because they share a religion. As stated in my video, Judaism is a religion not a nationality. The right to a nationality under international law does not apply to religious groups. It only applies to people who are tied to the land by habitual residence, or what the Montevideo Conference calls a permanent population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have missed the whole point of the video.  The Jewish people, the people of Israel, ARE a nationality.  The Jewish people, the  people of Israel, are tied to the land.  The Jewish people, the people of Israel, were the permanent population.  It is our homeland, our history, our birthright.  (It may be other people's land, and history and birthright.)  But it is also OURS.
> 
> The whole point of your video is to claim an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to the homeland from which a group was forceably removed -- to claim an absolute universal right to return to your homeland through the generations even if you, personally, have never been to that homeland.  The Mandate for Palestine is rooted in this concept -- the right to re-constitute your nation in the place of your origin.
> 
> It is immoral to claim a right for one people while simultaneously denying it to another.  It doesn't matter what excuse you give or how you argue it or how you frame it.  The concept of an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to your place of origin and homeland is the same whether you are speaking of Palestinians or Jews or any other people who have experienced a "Nakba".  Excluding any group from having that concept apply to them is immoral and wrong.
Click to expand...


What was immoral was the eviction of the native people of Palestine by Europeans whose ties to the Middle East were non-existent.


Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Response to Shusha's post:
> 
> He did mention that people who have never been to the holy land and have no ancestors from there should "return" to Israel simply because they share a religion. As stated in my video, Judaism is a religion not a nationality. The right to a nationality under international law does not apply to religious groups. It only applies to people who are tied to the land by habitual residence, or what the Montevideo Conference calls a permanent population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have missed the whole point of the video.  The Jewish people, the people of Israel, ARE a nationality.  The Jewish people, the  people of Israel, are tied to the land.  The Jewish people, the people of Israel, were the permanent population.  It is our homeland, our history, our birthright.  (It may be other people's land, and history and birthright.)  But it is also OURS.
> 
> The whole point of your video is to claim an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to the homeland from which a group was forceably removed -- to claim an absolute universal right to return to your homeland through the generations even if you, personally, have never been to that homeland.  The Mandate for Palestine is rooted in this concept -- the right to re-constitute your nation in the place of your origin.
> 
> It is immoral to claim a right for one people while simultaneously denying it to another.  It doesn't matter what excuse you give or how you argue it or how you frame it.  The concept of an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to your place of origin and homeland is the same whether you are speaking of Palestinians or Jews or any other people who have experienced a "Nakba".  Excluding any group from having that concept apply to them is immoral and wrong.
Click to expand...


The permanent population of Palestine are the people of Palestine.  Not Europeans, who had happened to adopt Judaism. 

The permanent population of Palestine are the people who have always lived there and converted to the various religions that held sway in the area over the centuries.  

If there was a right to reconstitute one's nation at the place of origin, the American Indians would be allotted most of the eastern United States, you silly goose, with far more justification than the Europeans that colonized Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.
> 
> The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.



You are avoiding the issue.  You posted a video, which you appear to support, which states that PEOPLE have an absolute, inalienable, universal,* intergenerational* right to return to their place of origin (their homeland) and have self-determination there.

Oh, except the JEWISH PEOPLE.  They, of all the peoples of this world, are excluded from having that right.  

Once again, I am supporting the rights of both people, which I consistently do, while you are actively denying the rights of one people, which you consistently do.


----------



## montelatici

No people have the right to expel the native people from the land they inhabit to make room for people from another continent.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The permanent population of Palestine are the people who have always lived there and converted to the various religions that held sway in the area over the centuries.



But according to your premise, they don't live there anymore.  Thus, they are no longer Palestinian.  They are Americans, and Syrians, and Jordanians, and Europeans.  As are the generations of their descendants. 



> If there was a right to reconstitute one's nation at the place of origin, the American Indians would be allotted most of the eastern United States, you silly goose, with far more justification than the Europeans that colonized Palestine.



And what makes you think I don't believe the First Nations peoples SHOULD re-constitute their national homeland on their ancestral lands?  I do.  Its happening here in Canada.  And I fully support it.  

See, my moral values and "rules" are consistent across the board.  They apply to the Jewish people, the Palestinian people, the First Nations peoples, Tibetans, Kurds, Catalans, to all peoples seeking self-determination.  

Yours, on the other hand, are applied haphazardly depending on which people you are talking about.  With the Palestinians you claim that they have the right of return and self-determination.  But you scoff at, actually mock, the right of American First Nations to have self-determination on land they clearly have claim to.  You pick and choose your moral values based on who you think "deserves" them.  You think the Palestinians are deserving, so you support their right of return*.  But you think neither the Jewish people, nor the First Nations peoples are deserving, so you invent excuses for them that you do not apply elsewhere.  



*actually, I don't believe you actually think the Pals are deserving.  I think you believe the Jewish people are not and must be prevented so you frame your remarks as positive towards the Pals, but its really formulated based on a negative towards Jews.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> No people have the right to expel the native people from the land they inhabit to make room for people from another continent.



Not the subject of conversation.  We are discussing the right of a people expelled as a result of conflict to return.


----------



## montelatici

The Europeans were not able to evict all the native people, the Palestinians that remain in historical Palestine (Israel+the Occupied Territories)  are the offspring of same native people that were there before the European invasion.  I haven't mentioned right of return.  The non-Jews are the majority within the area of Jewish control anyway.  All that is required is enfranchisement of all the people non-Jews as well as Jews.  Right of return is a secondary issue.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people have the right to expel the native people from the land they inhabit to make room for people from another continent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the subject of conversation.  We are discussing the right of a people expelled as a result of conflict to return.
Click to expand...


Right of return is not the subject of the thread.  Please stay on track.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.
> 
> The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are avoiding the issue.  You posted a video, which you appear to support, which states that PEOPLE have an absolute, inalienable, universal,* intergenerational* right to return to their place of origin (their homeland) and have self-determination there.
> 
> Oh, except the JEWISH PEOPLE.  They, of all the peoples of this world, are excluded from having that right.
> 
> Once again, I am supporting the rights of both people, which I consistently do, while you are actively denying the rights of one people, which you consistently do.
Click to expand...

The RoR is an individual right. Each person of a place has the right to return to his home in that place.

That doesn't apply to people who have never been there.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.
> 
> The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are avoiding the issue.  You posted a video, which you appear to support, which states that PEOPLE have an absolute, inalienable, universal,* intergenerational* right to return to their place of origin (their homeland) and have self-determination there.
> 
> Oh, except the JEWISH PEOPLE.  They, of all the peoples of this world, are excluded from having that right.
> 
> Once again, I am supporting the rights of both people, which I consistently do, while you are actively denying the rights of one people, which you consistently do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RoR is an individual right. Each person of a place has the right to return to his home in that place.
> 
> That doesn't apply to people who have never been there.
Click to expand...



So you disagree that it is an intergenerational right?  You would argue that the descendants of those forced out by the conflicts in 1948 and 1967 have no RoR?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.
> 
> The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are avoiding the issue.  You posted a video, which you appear to support, which states that PEOPLE have an absolute, inalienable, universal,* intergenerational* right to return to their place of origin (their homeland) and have self-determination there.
> 
> Oh, except the JEWISH PEOPLE.  They, of all the peoples of this world, are excluded from having that right.
> 
> Once again, I am supporting the rights of both people, which I consistently do, while you are actively denying the rights of one people, which you consistently do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The RoR is an individual right. Each person of a place has the right to return to his home in that place.
> 
> That doesn't apply to people who have never been there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you disagree that it is an intergenerational right?  You would argue that the descendants of those forced out by the conflicts in 1948 and 1967 have no RoR?
Click to expand...

Where do you get that?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Where do you get that?



You said the RoR doesn't apply to people who have never been there.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the RoR doesn't apply to people who have never been there.
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting *intergenerational?*


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said the RoR doesn't apply to people who have never been there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you forgetting *intergenerational?*
Click to expand...



*I'M* not forgetting intergenerational.  It seems you are.  But only when it comes to the Jewish people.  You accept the intergenerational nature of the RoR, except for the Jewish people.  You might want to pull your skirt down, your hypocrisy is showing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It was *Palestine.*

The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were* specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.*
> 
> Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are arguing for here, then.  That Palestine is one contiguous state from the border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon?  And that this can not be changed?  And that it should be under the sovereignty of Arab Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a 1946 map of Palestine. Look in the legend for the border line then find that line on the map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are those borders in 1949? Example:
> 
> *Article V*
> 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the *international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine. *
> 
> *The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949*
> 
> *Still there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims denied this plan so lost a lot of land they could have claimed in 1948. You ane them are crying over your ineptitude and arrogance in demanding all the land and getting nothing. The above map was a proposal and not set in stone borders. And the one you mention is the borders of the Mandate of Palestine with Lebanon as no state or nation of Palestine has ever existed.
Click to expand...

Do you have links to all that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
Click to expand...

The LoN never owned any land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.  Yeah.  Exactly.  Bingo.  They were the same place.  There was no Lebanon.  There was no Syria.  There was no Jordan.  There was no Palestine. There was no Israel.
> 
> So what, legally, gave Lebanon, and Syria, and Jordan the RIGHT to sovereignty over the territory they now hold?  And in what way does that SAME right deny the rights to the Jewish people over sovereignty as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people of the place, those who normally lived there, had sovereignty over their respective place.
> 
> Sovereignty did not apply to those who normally lived somewhere else.
> 
> Religion is not a factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But International treaties are, and they gave 22% of the sovereignty to the Jews. The same treaties expressly stated that the arab muslims wishing to remain as full citizens of the Jewish NATIONal home would do so as peaceful people. Any violent action would see them evicted from the state and the loss of their citizenship.
Click to expand...

Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Shusha,  et al,
> 
> The scope, the nature and the meaning of the Covenant (especially Article 22), San Remo Agreement, the Order in Council and the Mandate, belongs to the interpretation of the Allied Power and the Council to the League of Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​
> That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your sentence is absolutely true.  But I caution you not to make a leap of faith.
> 
> View attachment 57148​
> The Mandatory (UK) and the Council to the League of Nations, DID NOT WANT sovereignty.  They had absolute control of the territory and the future of the territory, as the title and rights was passed from the surrendering Sovereign _(via Turkey in Article 16)_ to the successor government established by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The Mandate is actually a derivative authority passed down to the Mandatory by the Council of the League of Nations.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

They had absolute control of the territory and the future of the territory, as the title and rights was passed from the surrendering Sovereign _(via Turkey in Article 16)_ to the successor government established by the Allied Powers.​
Britain failed to set up a successor government before they left. The right to set up their own government reverted to the citizens.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate.  Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?
> 
> 2.  The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare.  Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?
> 
> Perhaps you are not.  But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.
> 
> In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK showing that this was international law in 1948, as the first time it appeared as a recommendation was in 1967 in the UN res 242.   Stop trying to make resolutions international laws and then using them retrospectively
Click to expand...

It is in the UN Charter.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again we're back to this.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATION)*

Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
•  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)] ​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)

Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.  
•  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*

*(COMMENT)*

YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The fact is that once the Palestinians rejected the partition of Palestine, there was no more resolution 181. The Security Council would not impose it by force.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You can quite using this double talk.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN never owned any land.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty  (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had).  In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.

In the case of Palestine, 

Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."​
The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

That argument just doesn't hunt.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is that once the Palestinians rejected the partition of Palestine, there was no more resolution 181. The Security Council would not impose it by force.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

On more than one occasion, the Sole Representatives of the Palestinians recognized the international legitimacy of A/RES/181(II); once in 1988, once in 1999, and again when acknowledged by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department made open to the public.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You can quite using this double talk.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN never owned any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty  (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had).  In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.
> 
> In the case of Palestine,
> 
> Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.
> 
> "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."​
> The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

None of the new states were party to the treaty.

What is your point?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> That argument just doesn't hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is that once the Palestinians rejected the partition of Palestine, there was no more resolution 181. The Security Council would not impose it by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On more than one occasion, the Sole Representatives of the Palestinians recognized the international legitimacy of A/RES/181(II); once in 1988, once in 1999, and again when acknowledged by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department made open to the public.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Does that mean that there are now two states on the proposed 181 borders?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You can quite using this double talk.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had?  And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN never owned any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty  (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had).  In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.
> 
> In the case of Palestine,
> 
> Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.
> 
> "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."​
> The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Pursuant to Article 22 of the League of Nations the Mandatory was required to bring the "INHABITANTS" of the said territories (not the inhabitants of Europe that practiced Judaism) in a condition to assume self rule.  

*"ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and *which are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You can quite using this double talk.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN never owned any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty  (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had).  In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.
> 
> In the case of Palestine,
> 
> Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.
> 
> "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."​
> The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pursuant to Article 22 of the League of Nations the Mandatory was required to bring the "INHABITANTS" of the said territories (not the inhabitants of Europe that practiced Judaism) in a condition to assume self rule.
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and *which are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> 
> Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
> 
> There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."
Click to expand...

Don't confuse Rocco with the facts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You can quite using this double talk.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.
> 
> Show where that is incorrect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN never owned any land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty  (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had).  In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.
> 
> In the case of Palestine,
> 
> Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.
> 
> "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."​
> The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pursuant to Article 22 of the League of Nations the Mandatory was required to bring the "INHABITANTS" of the said territories (not the inhabitants of Europe that practiced Judaism) in a condition to assume self rule.
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and *which are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
> 
> Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
> 
> There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."
Click to expand...

I don't see foreigners mentioned.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Your previous argument tried to give the impression that "Arab Palestinian" property ownership somehow had an impact on the exclusive control or sovereignty over the territories.  IT DOES NOT.



P F Tinmore said:


> None of the new states were party to the treaty.
> 
> What is your point?


*(COMMENT)*

You argument tried to suggest that UN lack of Ownership somehow impacted in the exclusive control and sovereignty.  It does not.

The territories and the future of those territories passed from the previous sovereign to the Allied Powers.  The Arab Palestinians (nor any of the other Arab of the former enemy held territory) received any authority, control, independence of sovereignty.   That was exclusive to the Allied Powers, for which the Arab Palestinians were not members.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Your previous argument tried to give the impression that "Arab Palestinian" property ownership somehow had an impact on the exclusive control or sovereignty over the territories.  IT DOES NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the new states were party to the treaty.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You argument tried to suggest that UN lack of Ownership somehow impacted in the exclusive control and sovereignty.  It does not.
> 
> The territories and the future of those territories passed from the previous sovereign to the Allied Powers.  The Arab Palestinians (nor any of the other Arab of the former enemy held territory) received any authority, control, independence of sovereignty.   That was exclusive to the Allied Powers, for which the Arab Palestinians were not members.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, signed by all the Mandatories, including Britain, required that the Mandatory assist the "INHABITANTS", who in the case of Palestine were the Muslim and Christians in achieving statehood. It said nothing of any right of the inhabitants of Europe.  

*"ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and *which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves *under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are trying to pass-on some right or authority for which the members of the League of Nations had a say; and for which the League of Nations could interpret.  The Arab inhabitance had no impact.



P F Tinmore said:


> I don't see foreigners mentioned.


*(COMMENT)*

Everyone member and the Allied Powers understood what the intent was.  And to that end, that intent was carried out without the cooperation of the inhalants that elected not to participate in self-government programs.

Article 22 interpretation was in the hands of the League Mandate Commission, which oversaw the Mandates over the territories; and later the UN Trustee Program.  It is their interpretation that takes the day.  

The Arab Palestinians always thought, like most parasitic constituents, they were entitled to more than what they received.  It is what it is.  That is what the war of independence was about and that was the outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to pass-on some right or authority for which the members of the League of Nations had a say; and for which the League of Nations could interpret.  The Arab inhabitance had no impact.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see foreigners mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Everyone member and the Allied Powers understood what the intent was.  And to that end, that intent was carried out without the cooperation of the inhalants that elected not to participate in self-government programs.
> 
> Article 22 interpretation was in the hands of the League Mandate Commission, which oversaw the Mandates over the territories; and later the UN Trustee Program.  It is their interpretation that takes the day.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians always thought, like most parasitic constituents, they were entitled to more than what they received.  It is what it is.  That is what the war of independence was about and that was the outcome.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


How can you interpret "inhabitant" as not being an "inhabitant"?  You go looney when you lose.  Your racist hate of Arabs is disgusting by the way. "parasitic constituents" my ass. They read the Covenant as anyone with a minimal grasp of the language read it, the "inhabitants", and the Muslims and Christians were the inhabitants were to be brought, through the tutelage of the Mandatory, to statehood.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Your previous argument tried to give the impression that "Arab Palestinian" property ownership somehow had an impact on the exclusive control or sovereignty over the territories.  IT DOES NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the new states were party to the treaty.
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You argument tried to suggest that UN lack of Ownership somehow impacted in the exclusive control and sovereignty.  It does not.
> 
> The territories and the future of those territories passed from the previous sovereign to the Allied Powers.  The Arab Palestinians (nor any of the other Arab of the former enemy held territory) received any authority, control, independence of sovereignty.   That was exclusive to the Allied Powers, for which the Arab Palestinians were not members.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There is private property and all other property is collectively owned by the citizens.
The LoN, the Mandate, and the UN were not in either of these categories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to pass-on some right or authority for which the members of the League of Nations had a say; and for which the League of Nations could interpret.  The Arab inhabitance had no impact.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see foreigners mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Everyone member and the Allied Powers understood what the intent was.  And to that end, that intent was carried out without the cooperation of the inhalants that elected not to participate in self-government programs.
> 
> Article 22 interpretation was in the hands of the League Mandate Commission, which oversaw the Mandates over the territories; and later the UN Trustee Program.  It is their interpretation that takes the day.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians always thought, like most parasitic constituents, they were entitled to more than what they received.  It is what it is.  That is what the war of independence was about and that was the outcome.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.​*
Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*​
> Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.
Click to expand...

You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.


----------



## theliq

CMike said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was it ever an independent Muslim state?
> 
> It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.
Click to expand...

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*​
> Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.
Click to expand...

I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> What was it they wanted to partition???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*​
> Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
Click to expand...

Code, Steve.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was *Palestine.*
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*​
> Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Code, Steve.
Click to expand...


Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again we're back to this.
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> Point # 1:  Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
> •  The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948.  The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ.  [*SOURCE:*  Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]​Point #2:  *When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged* in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.  (SOURCE:  Part I Section F)
> 
> Point #3:  During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact *the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented*." (*SOURCE:*  UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)
> 
> Point #4:  The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.
> •  Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the* international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947*, and
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.  (SOURCE:  Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​
> Point #5:  For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. *The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)*, as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
> 
> Point #6:  The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated:  Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YES.  The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer.  But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.
> 
> You will note that "either" party could accept.  Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept.  This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*​
> Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
Click to expand...

I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
But we're getting away from the OP.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*​
> Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
> But we're getting away from the OP.
Click to expand...


Wow, another homophobe.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.
> 
> 
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
> But we're getting away from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, another homophobe.
Click to expand...

You win a seegar, Chuckles!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preparatory Steps to Independence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.

The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.*​
> Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
> But we're getting away from the OP.
Click to expand...

I dunno Hoss,she isn't a Dyke at all,I see your reaction as denial of the secret feelings you have for her,so you wake in the middle of night in a sexual sweat,who cares,just admit the lady turns you on,no shame in that....a song for you friend.I hope it helps...steve.......always caring


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

Yah, this is very strange approach.



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.


*(COMMENT)*

It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers. 

The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.

Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers. 

•••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Yah, this is very strange approach.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> •••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

After two decades of *Mandatory rule and colonization* from abroad, the *inherent rights of the Palestinians* finally had been acknowledged.

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Yah, this is very strange approach.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> •••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco is confused.  The "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria, and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotania"   was signed in 1920 more than 2 years before the Mandate for Palestine was signed.

*"FRANCO-BRITISH BOUNDARY AGREEMENT (1920)*

The *Franco-British Boundary Agreement* of 1920, properly called the *Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia*, was an agreement signed between theBritish and French governments in Paris, on 23 December 1920. The agreement contained statements of principle regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France."

Franco-British Boundary Agreement (1920) | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Yah, this is very strange approach.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> •••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.​
Link?

My sources say different.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.
> 
> 
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
> But we're getting away from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno Hoss,she isn't a Dyke at all,I see your reaction as denial of the secret feelings you have for her,so you wake in the middle of night in a sexual sweat,who cares,just admit the lady turns you on,no shame in that....a song for you friend.I hope it helps...steve.......always caring
Click to expand...

*Not a Playboy Playmate*


*


*


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
> 
> 
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
> But we're getting away from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno Hoss,she isn't a Dyke at all,I see your reaction as denial of the secret feelings you have for her,so you wake in the middle of night in a sexual sweat,who cares,just admit the lady turns you on,no shame in that....a song for you friend.I hope it helps...steve.......always caring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not a Playboy Playmate*
> 
> 
> *View attachment 59263*
Click to expand...


Add  misogynist to homophobe.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
> But we're getting away from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno Hoss,she isn't a Dyke at all,I see your reaction as denial of the secret feelings you have for her,so you wake in the middle of night in a sexual sweat,who cares,just admit the lady turns you on,no shame in that....a song for you friend.I hope it helps...steve.......always caring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not a Playboy Playmate*
> 
> 
> *View attachment 59263*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Add  misogynist to homophobe.
Click to expand...

You forgot cynic


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Yah, this is very strange approach.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> •••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Yah, this is very strange approach.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> •••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve
> 
> 
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
> But we're getting away from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno Hoss,she isn't a Dyke at all,I see your reaction as denial of the secret feelings you have for her,so you wake in the middle of night in a sexual sweat,who cares,just admit the lady turns you on,no shame in that....a song for you friend.I hope it helps...steve.......always caring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not a Playboy Playmate*
> 
> 
> *View attachment 59263*
Click to expand...

She could have been in the early days Hoss.......to the rest of the posters,my apologies for digressing off topic....steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Code, Steve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss,I note that you often use pics of Mrs Clinton...do you have Sexual Fantasys (sic)about her or what...Just musing Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have fantasies about Bull Dykes. Just typical hatred of anything Clinton.
> But we're getting away from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno Hoss,she isn't a Dyke at all,I see your reaction as denial of the secret feelings you have for her,so you wake in the middle of night in a sexual sweat,who cares,just admit the lady turns you on,no shame in that....a song for you friend.I hope it helps...steve.......always caring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not a Playboy Playmate*
> 
> 
> *View attachment 59263*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She could have been in the early days Hoss.......to the rest of the posters,my apologies for digressing off topic....steve
Click to expand...

You're right, Steve. Sadly, the only thing she attracts now is crab lice.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate did no such thing.  The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria.  Jewish people lived in Syria.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon.  Jewish people lived in Lebanon.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan.  Jewish people lived in Jordan.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?
> 
> Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land.  Arab Muslims lived in Israel.
> 
> Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​
First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. *Nobody* has the authority to change that.

The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..


----------



## Shusha

Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Don't be such a wise-ass.  I'm not confused at all.  You just didn't get it.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is confused.  The "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria, and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotania"   was signed in 1920 more than 2 years before the Mandate for Palestine was signed.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The "IDEAs" and the basic content of the Mandate was agreed upon by the Allied Powers in 1920 at the San Remo Convention.

True, the Mandate itself was introduced for adoption in 1922, but the idea to replace the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) with a civil administration was the topic of many discussions between 1918 and 1920, with the fundamental product, verbiage, and limitations were hammered-out and adopted by the Allied Powers at San Remo.  And the Allied Powers were operating under the tenants of the Mandate years before the Mandate was actually set to paper before the Council.


*EXCERPTS*
04/25/1920 *Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference* (UK, France, Italy, Japan) - Resolution (Non-UN document)​The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration • *

** • *originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
*____________________________________________________________________________*​
*THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920*​
The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain. The terms of the Mandate were also discussed with the United States which was not a member of the League. An agreed text was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and it came into operation in September 1923.[/center]​
*The point was*, that _the Allied Powers already had decided what was going to happen_ and how they wanted to frame it.  They did not actually need the League of Nations or it Covenant at all.  Nor did they actually need a written mandate.  They were just the manifestation of the Will of the Allied Powers.

In fact, given the hindsight --- the Allied Powers would have been better-off if the had dispensed with the entire League of Nations (LoN)*(no covenant at all)* concept and the issuance of a LoN Mandate; and just did it.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians have been welding their interpretation of Article 22 as if it were a broadsword and an absolute, carved in stone, commandment.  When in fact, it was conceived by the Allied Powers, as a forum for the Allied Powers, and dispensed by the Allied Powers when it became unacceptable.

*The League of Nations, 1920* ​EXCERPT:  Department of State - Office of the Historian

The League of Nations was an international organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, created after the First World War to provide a forum for resolving international disputes. Though first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points plan for an equitable peace in Europe, the United States never became a member.​
​
The Covenant of the League of Nations was not an inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  It was a by-product of the War generated by the "BIG THREE"  _(Woodrow Wilson of the United States, Georges Clemenceau of France, and David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom)_.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?



Shusha, people of the Jewish religion were a tiny minority in all the places you mention.  In Trans-Jordania they were, along with Christians, not even mentioned as being present at all, in the first Report of the Mandatory (unlike the section regarding Palestine ).  

When the Mandate was implemented, there were more Christians than Jews in Palestine, and they were almost all recent immigrants as the Report of the Mandatory states:

_There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. 

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. *Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years.* Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine._


Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)

Certainly, the "inhabitants" that Article 22 of the League of Nations referred to included the Christians and Muslims which accounted for more than 90% of the population, and far larger percentage if the newly arrived European colonists were not included.

*"ARTICLE 22.*
_To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Shusha, people of the Jewish religion were a tiny minority in all the places you mention.



So you are arguing that only majority populations can have self-determination?  And that if a land is emptied of its indigenous population by invading and colonizing peoples that the minority remaining indigenous population is not entitled to self-determination?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Don't be such a wise-ass.  I'm not confused at all.  You just didn't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco is confused.  The "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria, and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotania"   was signed in 1920 more than 2 years before the Mandate for Palestine was signed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "IDEAs" and the basic content of the Mandate was agreed upon by the Allied Powers in 1920 at the San Remo Convention.
> 
> True, the Mandate itself was introduced for adoption in 1922, but the idea to replace the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) with a civil administration was the topic of many discussions between 1918 and 1920, with the fundamental product, verbiage, and limitations were hammered-out and adopted by the Allied Powers at San Remo.  And the Allied Powers were operating under the tenants of the Mandate years before the Mandate was actually set to paper before the Council.
> 
> 
> *EXCERPTS*
> 04/25/1920 *Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference* (UK, France, Italy, Japan) - Resolution (Non-UN document)​The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration • *
> 
> ** • *originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
> 
> Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
> *____________________________________________________________________________*​
> *THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920*​
> The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain. The terms of the Mandate were also discussed with the United States which was not a member of the League. An agreed text was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and it came into operation in September 1923.[/center]​
> *The point was*, that _the Allied Powers already had decided what was going to happen_ and how they wanted to frame it.  They did not actually need the League of Nations or it Covenant at all.  Nor did they actually need a written mandate.  They were just the manifestation of the Will of the Allied Powers.
> 
> In fact, given the hindsight --- the Allied Powers would have been better-off if the had dispensed with the entire League of Nations (LoN)*(no covenant at all)* concept and the issuance of a LoN Mandate; and just did it.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians have been welding their interpretation of Article 22 as if it were a broadsword and an absolute, carved in stone, commandment.  When in fact, it was conceived by the Allied Powers, as a forum for the Allied Powers, and dispensed by the Allied Powers when it became unacceptable.
> 
> *The League of Nations, 1920* ​EXCERPT:  Department of State - Office of the Historian
> 
> The League of Nations was an international organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, created after the First World War to provide a forum for resolving international disputes. Though first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points plan for an equitable peace in Europe, the United States never became a member.​
> ​
> The Covenant of the League of Nations was not an inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  It was a by-product of the War generated by the "BIG THREE"  _(Woodrow Wilson of the United States, Georges Clemenceau of France, and David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations.  And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.

*ARTICLE 20.*
_The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

*In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations*_


----------



## jillian

Coyote said:


> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *



why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is so naive, that it is sad. 



P F Tinmore said:


> You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​
> First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. *Nobody* has the authority to change that.
> 
> The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..


*(COMMENT)*

Basic Rule of the World:  You are not rewarded for loosing!

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories:  (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)

*ARTICLE 16*.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority.  BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that.  If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves.  Just who do you think they were going to ask?  WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission.  They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League.  It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.  

Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers _(not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance)_.  For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers.  The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers.  Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom.  Nor was it customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

jillian said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?
Click to expand...


Because threads in those forums don't get consistently derailed like threads in IP do.  You can start with any topic and it's almost a guarantee that within a few pages the the thread is derailed into the history of the mandate, who has a right to be there, who is an invader/squatter, who is indiginous yada yada yada.  This seems like one solution, that avoids having to just delete posts and gives a consistent place to discuss this.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha, people of the Jewish religion were a tiny minority in all the places you mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are arguing that only majority populations can have self-determination?  And that if a land is emptied of its indigenous population by invading and colonizing peoples that the minority remaining indigenous population is not entitled to self-determination?
Click to expand...


An indigenous population that changes religions through the ages does not equal the emptying of the land of its indigenous population every time they happen to change religion.  The Druid worshipping English that did not leave for Wales and Scotland did not somehow disappear when they began worshipping the Roman religion after Romanization, nor when they adopted Christianity. 

According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states.  The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants. This was clear in the first letter from the Palestinian Delegation to the British Colonial Office, to wit:


*"PALESTINE.*​*CORRESPONDENCE 
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE 
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​*​*Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:​*
_The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
_


_
(1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.

(2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.

(4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.

(5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.

(6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
_

_The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all."_

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)


----------



## jillian

Coyote said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because threads in those forums don't get consistently derailed like threads in IP do.  You can start with any topic and it's almost a guarantee that within a few pages the the thread is derailed into the history of the mandate, who has a right to be there, who is an invader/squatter, who is indiginous yada yada yada.  This seems like one solution, that avoids having to just delete posts and gives a consistent place to discuss this.
Click to expand...


no. my point is if you ask those questions abut israel, you need to ask the same questions about the countries i mentioned since they were "formed" the same way.


----------



## Coyote

jillian said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because threads in those forums don't get consistently derailed like threads in IP do.  You can start with any topic and it's almost a guarantee that within a few pages the the thread is derailed into the history of the mandate, who has a right to be there, who is an invader/squatter, who is indiginous yada yada yada.  This seems like one solution, that avoids having to just delete posts and gives a consistent place to discuss this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no. my point is if you ask those questions abut israel, you need to ask the same questions about the countries i mentioned since they were "formed" the same way.
Click to expand...


Agree...and if people want to they can - I don't care    We are just tired of the constant derailing of threads in IP.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is so naive, that it is sad.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​
> First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. *Nobody* has the authority to change that.
> 
> The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Basic Rule of the World:  You are not rewarded for loosing!
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories:  (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority.  BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that.  If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves.  Just who do you think they were going to ask?  WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission.  They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League.  It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers _(not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance)_.  For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers.  The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers.  Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom.  Nor was it customary law.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Oh dear.  Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.  

Let's go through it:

1. The signatories to Covenant agreed to abrogate any obligation or understanding antecedent to the signing of the Covenant that are inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant and agree not enter into any agreement  inconsistent with the Covenant after signing. 

To wit:

*ARTICLE 20.*
_*The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.*

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
_
2. The Mandatory was not the sovereign as Rocco would like to imply.  The sovereign would have complete authority, this is not the case:

A little noted terms of Article 22 state, for example:

*"The wishes of these communities (the former Turkish possessions, ed.) must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."  *

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

Note: The permanent members of the council at the time of signing were: United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, right.



montelatici said:


> Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations.  And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
> 
> *ARTICLE 20.*
> _The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> *In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations*_



*(COMMENT)*

That is your interpretation.  Obviously, the Allied Powers that wrote the Covenant and met at San Remo, did not see it that way.  

The Covenant for the League of Nations is often thought of as a stand alone document and independent authority.  It is not.  It is actually Part I --- The first 30 Articles _(of 440 Articles)_ --- The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919.

The League of Nations (< 55 members by 1939) was almost universally accepted as a failed organization.  There is no real end-date before the 34 member nations met on 18 April1946 for their final meeting as the League; however, the outbreak of WWII in 1939 marked the failure of the primary aim of the League.  But many historian will argue that the Versailles Treaty was essentially suspended when Adolf Hitler in 1933 when Hitler announced that Weimar Republic (Germany) would no longer pay any further war reparations as assessed from WWI.  ODDLY ENOUGH, when East Germany reunited with West Germany (1990) after an agreement was struck between the BIG FOUR + 1 (France, America, the UK, US and Germany), the debt from the the Great War was awoken.  Germany negotiated a re-financing debt payment plan. It was on 3 October 2010 that German made it's final $94 million WWI reparations payment from WWI. 

Just so I don't confuse you.  The BIG FOUR (US, UK, FR, USSR) did not need the Covenant or the League, or even the master authority of the Treaty, to do what they collectively felt was in the best interest of Civilization at that time.  In the case of The "Creation of Israel the UN and the British Mandate," there is a common threat that disengages some and couples other concepts.  The tyranny by the Arab Majority over the Jewish Minority effectively blocked.    The BIG PICTURE doctrines is one in which the exercise of a moral obligation to assist Israel, in order to prevent an inequitable result, is the epitome of a just cause.

POINT:  The Covenant, and by extension the Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles was no longer in effect.  The pro-Palestinian argument attempt to tie this long since irrelevant language to the decisions leading to the, General Assembly establishing the Steps Preparatory to Independence, is unpersuasive.   In 1947, when the recommendations were made to the General Assembly, the application of such argument were made irrelevant.  Arabs  whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict, were not victims of any decisions made relative to the Covenant or Mandate after April '46.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, I don't think I said that the Mandatory was the "sovereign"  (having absolute authority) over the Territory.  What I said was that the previous "sovereign authority" surrendered the title and rights of the territory to the Allied Powers; not the Arab Inhabitants.   (Normally the defeated power does not surrender to one of it subordinate states.  It surrenders to the powers that were victorious.)

I never said the Mandatory had complete authority.  But is would not be any troube at all to secure such authority.  By comparison, the enemy inhabitants had no authority.



montelatici said:


> 2. The Mandatory was not the sovereign as Rocco would like to imply.  The sovereign would have complete authority, this is not the case:
> 
> A little noted terms of Article 22 state, for example:
> 
> *"The wishes of these communities (the former Turkish possessions, ed.) must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."  *
> 
> *The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council."*
> 
> Note: The permanent members of the council at the time of signing were: United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan.


*(COMMENT)*

Oh I think you need to reread the passage again.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.​
Yeah, they get to request (wish) which of the Principle Allied Powers becomes the Mandatory.

This passage is often misunderstood.  It says "Certain Communities."  It does not say "all communities."  The passage says can acquire recognition as a "Provisional" independent nation.  It does not say they are promised independence.

They must be able to stand alone (a prerequisite).

The Palestinians have often used the excuse that they cannot stand alone, yet all the other Mandates in the region were able to meet this criteria.  So we know it is possible.  Yet the Arab Palestinian cann not meet that threshold.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## alpine

Here is what happened;

British talked Arabs into raising against Ottomans during the 1st world war
Arabs asked for an Arab state in the mid east in return
British promised them an Arab state in the mid east
But British promised a lot of others, a lot of other things too
Arabs raised against Ottoman
Axis lost the war
British did give some to all (Arabs, French, Italians, Jews)
That pissed of the Arabs
At the end British said "i am out, do whatever you like"

There is a famous saying; there are no rules in war nor love...

Arabs should have sucked it up long time ago. They didn't. They were beaten up bunch of times by a small tiny Jewish state and still refused to suck it up. And now they are in this mess.

Israel should give Arabs the borders Rabin agreed to in Oslo and be done with it...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?


the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha, people of the Jewish religion were a tiny minority in all the places you mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are arguing that only majority populations can have self-determination?  And that if a land is emptied of its indigenous population by invading and colonizing peoples that the minority remaining indigenous population is not entitled to self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An indigenous population that changes religions through the ages does not equal the emptying of the land of its indigenous population every time they happen to change religion.  The Druid worshipping English that did not leave for Wales and Scotland did not somehow disappear when they began worshipping the Roman religion after Romanization, nor when they adopted Christianity.
> 
> According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states.  The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants. This was clear in the first letter from the Palestinian Delegation to the British Colonial Office, to wit:
> 
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:*​
> _The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> _
> 
> 
> _
> (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
> 
> (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
> 
> (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
> 
> (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
> 
> (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
> 
> (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power._
> 
> _The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
Click to expand...

The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.​
OMG, how can a superior race accept such a thing?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is so naive, that it is sad.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​
> First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. *Nobody* has the authority to change that.
> 
> The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Basic Rule of the World:  You are not rewarded for loosing!
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories:  (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority.  BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that.  If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves.  Just who do you think they were going to ask?  WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission.  They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League.  It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers _(not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance)_.  For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers.  The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers.  Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom.  Nor was it customary law.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​
The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:

To self determination without external interference.

To independence and sovereignty.

To territorial integrity.​
As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
Click to expand...

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land. 

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

Some were. Most were not.

You need to read up.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some were. Most were not.
> 
> You need to read up.
Click to expand...

I have read up and I took the time to explain it to you so you could write with clarity. 

It's typical of the Islamist Pom Pom flailers to ignore that the history of the area is described by one tribe of Islamist invaders slaughtering the competing tribe. 

It's a shame that Islamists are forever consigned to live in the past as warring tribes, always the angry, self-haters. The relevant first world shakes its collective head in disgust as Third world islamos' demand a voice in global matters while they step over the dead bodies of their co-Islamists.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> An indigenous population that changes religions through the ages does not equal the emptying of the land of its indigenous population every time they happen to change religion.



This more properly belongs on the other thread but ... an indigenous population which adopts and is absorbed into the invading and colonizing group so the two are no longer culturally distinguishable from each other is no longer the indigenous population. The indigenous culture is the culture of the pre-invasion peoples.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some were. Most were not.
> 
> You need to read up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read up and I took the time to explain it to you so you could write with clarity.
> 
> It's typical of the Islamist Pom Pom flailers to ignore that the history of the area is described by one tribe of Islamist invaders slaughtering the competing tribe.
> 
> It's a shame that Islamists are forever consigned to live in the past as warring tribes, always the angry, self-haters. The relevant first world shakes its collective head in disgust as Third world islamos' demand a voice in global matters while they step over the dead bodies of their co-Islamists.
Click to expand...

You explained Israeli propaganda. Heard it already a gazillion times. It still does not make it true.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.



Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group? 

Hmmm.  That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR.  By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?
> 
> Hmmm.  That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR.  By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?
> 
> Hmmm.  That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR.  By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.
Click to expand...


You are going off the deep end.  You are claiming that people that were genetically mostly European,  were born in Europe and whose ancestors as far as they could document were born in Europe had more right to live in Palestine than the native Palestinians.  It is absurd.

"Study Traces Ashkenazi Roots to European Women Who Probably Converted to Judaism"

Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?
> 
> Hmmm.  That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR.  By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going off the deep end.  You are claiming that people that were genetically mostly European,  were born in Europe and whose ancestors as far as they could document were born in Europe had more right to live in Palestine than the native Palestinians.  It is absurd.
> 
> "Study Traces Ashkenazi Roots to European Women Who Probably Converted to Judaism"
> 
> Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
Click to expand...



Not at all.  I'm claiming that the Jewish people have an EQUAL right to sovereignty and self-determination in their place of origin and homeland.  As opposed to the anti-Israel faction who claim that the Jewish people have lost their rights due to forced displacement and expulsion.  AND I am pointing out the essential hypocrisy of those who claim that the Jewish people have lost their rights due to forced displacement and expulsion while "Palestinians" retain their rights when displaced and expelled.

Ultimately, I don't even care which side you end up on -- but you must end the hypocrisy of having two sets of standards for two sets of peoples.  That is, frankly, just anti-semitism.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you are arguing that people who are displaced and expelled by the invading and colonizing forces not only lose their rights to return or to self-determination but ALSO lose their rights to belong to the group?
> 
> Hmmm.  That's gonna be a bitch when you try to insist that the "Palestinians" have a RoR.  By your definition they are no longer even Palestinian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going off the deep end.  You are claiming that people that were genetically mostly European,  were born in Europe and whose ancestors as far as they could document were born in Europe had more right to live in Palestine than the native Palestinians.  It is absurd.
> 
> "Study Traces Ashkenazi Roots to European Women Who Probably Converted to Judaism"
> 
> Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm claiming that the Jewish people have an EQUAL right to sovereignty and self-determination in their place of origin and homeland.  As opposed to the anti-Israel faction who claim that the Jewish people have lost their rights due to forced displacement and expulsion.  AND I am pointing out the essential hypocrisy of those who claim that the Jewish people have lost their rights due to forced displacement and expulsion while "Palestinians" retain their rights when displaced and expelled.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't even care which side you end up on -- but you must end the hypocrisy of having two sets of standards for two sets of peoples.  That is, frankly, just anti-semitism.
Click to expand...


Europeans  that convert to Hinduism, e.g. Hari Krishnas do not become indigenous to India.  

In any case Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations refers to the "inhabitants". Not people living outside of the former territory of Turkey, named Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You pro-Palestinians bake these rights like they are cookies.  Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (non-binding) does not list either "inherent" or "inalienable" rights.  All it says is that:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,​Everything else is "man-made" and subject to religious, political and cultural interpretations.  Sharia is different than Western Law.   Justice is different in Muslim States than it is in Western States.  Fair punishments are differnet in Western Law than Sharia.

The only "inherent" right is outline in International Law is found in Article 51, UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. ​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is so naive, that it is sad.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​
> First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. *Nobody* has the authority to change that.
> 
> The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Basic Rule of the World:  You are not rewarded for loosing!
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories:  (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority.  BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that.  If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves.  Just who do you think they were going to ask?  WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission.  They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League.  It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers _(not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance)_.  For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers.  The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers.  Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom.  Nor was it customary law.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​
> The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:
> 
> To self determination without external interference.
> 
> To independence and sovereignty.
> 
> To territorial integrity.​
> As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The concepts of "independence" and "sovereignty" --- with "self-determination without external interference" and "territorial integrity" are man-made rights :  ((Not inherent and not inalienable.))

•  Under Chapter I, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter; "independence" and "sovereignty" --- and they have limitations.
•  While Article 2 of the Charter mentions "self-determination" and "territorial integrity" --- first stem from the Theory of Westphalian Sovereignty (TWPS)(1648) and is a principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs.  This would include the basic principle of non intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.  The ​
Whether we talk about the Emperors of the Roman Empire 100 BC, the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, or the Monarchies and Imperial Systems of the 17th thru 19th Centuries, OR today --- you will not find any consistent agreement between political entities, cultural societies, or religious regimes that have the same concept in Human Right.

*TO YOUR QUESTION:*  How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

Your argument that somehow these imaginary rights you are attempting to apply at various decision points along the timeline, simply are not real.  You cannot build your case that the Allied Powers did this or that in violation of this or that when the "rights" did not exist at that time.  The TWPS applied just as equally to the Jewish People as it might have for the Arab Palestinian.  As much as you would like to believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian had some superior claim, special anointed right (inherent, inalienable, or otherwise), or other moral, legal or ethical argument ... the fact is, the customary law for thousands of years has to have settled these territorial disputes in a trail by combat; the victor wins all.  Even today, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), which made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; has been using terrorism, insurgencies and jihad to win by force that which they could not achieve through diplomacy.  Both HAMAS and the PLO declared a Jihad and now the HoAP use every opportunity to fraudulently instigate or incite a conflict and then frivolously charge before the international community that they are being trounced in a manner that is unfair.  This is all one and the same package.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
Click to expand...


No, they weren't.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You pro-Palestinians bake these rights like they are cookies.  Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (non-binding) does not list either "inherent" or "inalienable" rights.  All it says is that:
> 
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,​Everything else is "man-made" and subject to religious, political and cultural interpretations.  Sharia is different than Western Law.   Justice is different in Muslim States than it is in Western States.  Fair punishments are differnet in Western Law than Sharia.
> 
> The only "inherent" right is outline in International Law is found in Article 51, UN Charter:
> 
> Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is so naive, that it is sad.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​
> First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. *Nobody* has the authority to change that.
> 
> The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Basic Rule of the World:  You are not rewarded for loosing!
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories:  (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority.  BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that.  If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves.  Just who do you think they were going to ask?  WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission.  They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League.  It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers _(not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance)_.  For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers.  The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers.  Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom.  Nor was it customary law.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​
> The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:
> 
> To self determination without external interference.
> 
> To independence and sovereignty.
> 
> To territorial integrity.​
> As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concepts of "independence" and "sovereignty" --- with "self-determination without external interference" and "territorial integrity" are man-made rights :  ((Not inherent and not inalienable.))
> 
> •  Under Chapter I, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter; "independence" and "sovereignty" --- and they have limitations.
> •  While Article 2 of the Charter mentions "self-determination" and "territorial integrity" --- first stem from the Theory of Westphalian Sovereignty (TWPS)(1648) and is a principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs.  This would include the basic principle of non intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.  The​
> Whether we talk about the Emperors of the Roman Empire 100 BC, the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, or the Monarchies and Imperial Systems of the 17th thru 19th Centuries, OR today --- you will not find any consistent agreement between political entities, cultural societies, or religious regimes that have the same concept in Human Right.
> 
> *TO YOUR QUESTION:*  How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?
> 
> Your argument that somehow these imaginary rights you are attempting to apply at various decision points along the timeline, simply are not real.  You cannot build your case that the Allied Powers did this or that in violation of this or that when the "rights" did not exist at that time.  The TWPS applied just as equally to the Jewish People as it might have for the Arab Palestinian.  As much as you would like to believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian had some superior claim, special anointed right (inherent, inalienable, or otherwise), or other moral, legal or ethical argument ... the fact is, the customary law for thousands of years has to have settled these territorial disputes in a trail by combat; the victor wins all.  Even today, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), which made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; has been using terrorism, insurgencies and jihad to win by force that which they could not achieve through diplomacy.  Both HAMAS and the PLO declared a Jihad and now the HoAP use every opportunity to fraudulently instigate or incite a conflict and then frivolously charge before the international community that they are being trounced in a manner that is unfair.  This is all one and the same package.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Palestinian Christians and Muslims, as the inhabitants of Palestine, had the legal right, as enunciated by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  

*ARTICLE 22.*
_To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant._

All your shucking and jiving, all your childish  name calling e.g.  "Hostile Arab Palestinian" does not change the fact that you are full of shit and don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.



Coyote said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)

•  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
•  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America. 
•  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.

∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
The compound questions that need asked, are:
•  When does a person become "indigenous?" 
•  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?  
•  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
•  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend? 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Inhabitant means inhabitant you clown.  Someone living outside of Palestine was not an inhabitant of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Relative to the focus of the thread question:  Article 22 does not have a being on the "creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate"



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You pro-Palestinians bake these rights like they are cookies.  Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (non-binding) does not list either "inherent" or "inalienable" rights.  All it says is that:
> 
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,​Everything else is "man-made" and subject to religious, political and cultural interpretations.  Sharia is different than Western Law.   Justice is different in Muslim States than it is in Western States.  Fair punishments are differnet in Western Law than Sharia.
> 
> The only "inherent" right is outline in International Law is found in Article 51, UN Charter:
> 
> Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is so naive, that it is sad.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​
> First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. *Nobody* has the authority to change that.
> 
> The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Basic Rule of the World:  You are not rewarded for loosing!
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories:  (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority.  BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that.  If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves.  Just who do you think they were going to ask?  WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission.  They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League.  It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers _(not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance)_.  For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers.  The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers.  Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom.  Nor was it customary law.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​
> The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:
> 
> To self determination without external interference.
> 
> To independence and sovereignty.
> 
> To territorial integrity.​
> As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concepts of "independence" and "sovereignty" --- with "self-determination without external interference" and "territorial integrity" are man-made rights :  ((Not inherent and not inalienable.))
> 
> •  Under Chapter I, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter; "independence" and "sovereignty" --- and they have limitations.
> •  While Article 2 of the Charter mentions "self-determination" and "territorial integrity" --- first stem from the Theory of Westphalian Sovereignty (TWPS)(1648) and is a principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs.  This would include the basic principle of non intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.  The​
> Whether we talk about the Emperors of the Roman Empire 100 BC, the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, or the Monarchies and Imperial Systems of the 17th thru 19th Centuries, OR today --- you will not find any consistent agreement between political entities, cultural societies, or religious regimes that have the same concept in Human Right.
> 
> *TO YOUR QUESTION:*  How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?
> 
> Your argument that somehow these imaginary rights you are attempting to apply at various decision points along the timeline, simply are not real.  You cannot build your case that the Allied Powers did this or that in violation of this or that when the "rights" did not exist at that time.  The TWPS applied just as equally to the Jewish People as it might have for the Arab Palestinian.  As much as you would like to believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian had some superior claim, special anointed right (inherent, inalienable, or otherwise), or other moral, legal or ethical argument ... the fact is, the customary law for thousands of years has to have settled these territorial disputes in a trail by combat; the victor wins all.  Even today, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), which made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; has been using terrorism, insurgencies and jihad to win by force that which they could not achieve through diplomacy.  Both HAMAS and the PLO declared a Jihad and now the HoAP use every opportunity to fraudulently instigate or incite a conflict and then frivolously charge before the international community that they are being trounced in a manner that is unfair.  This is all one and the same package.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Christians and Muslims, as the inhabitants of Palestine, had the legal right, as enunciated by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant._
> 
> All your shucking and jiving, all your childish  name calling e.g.  "Hostile Arab Palestinian" does not change the fact that you are full of shit and don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It was not even in effect in 1948.

You are trying to suggest that Article 22 was a Mandate (something that must be obeyed).  It was not.  The Mandate _(the Allied Powers in agreement)_ was the Mandate _(the official commission to the British Mandatory to carry-out policy and objectives)_. 

•  Entrust to a British Mandatory the administration of the territory of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, the Balfour Declaration...


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Relative to the focus of the thread question:  Article 22 does not have a being on the "creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate"
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You pro-Palestinians bake these rights like they are cookies.  Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (non-binding) does not list either "inherent" or "inalienable" rights.  All it says is that:
> 
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,​Everything else is "man-made" and subject to religious, political and cultural interpretations.  Sharia is different than Western Law.   Justice is different in Muslim States than it is in Western States.  Fair punishments are differnet in Western Law than Sharia.
> 
> The only "inherent" right is outline in International Law is found in Article 51, UN Charter:
> 
> Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is so naive, that it is sad.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​
> First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. *Nobody* has the authority to change that.
> 
> The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Basic Rule of the World:  You are not rewarded for loosing!
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories:  (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)
> 
> *ARTICLE 16*.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority.  BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that.  If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves.  Just who do you think they were going to ask?  WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission.  They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League.  It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers _(not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance)_.  For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers.  The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers.  Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom.  Nor was it customary law.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​
> The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:
> 
> To self determination without external interference.
> 
> To independence and sovereignty.
> 
> To territorial integrity.​
> As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The concepts of "independence" and "sovereignty" --- with "self-determination without external interference" and "territorial integrity" are man-made rights :  ((Not inherent and not inalienable.))
> 
> •  Under Chapter I, Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter; "independence" and "sovereignty" --- and they have limitations.
> •  While Article 2 of the Charter mentions "self-determination" and "territorial integrity" --- first stem from the Theory of Westphalian Sovereignty (TWPS)(1648) and is a principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs.  This would include the basic principle of non intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.  The​
> Whether we talk about the Emperors of the Roman Empire 100 BC, the early Islamic conquests in the 7th century, or the Monarchies and Imperial Systems of the 17th thru 19th Centuries, OR today --- you will not find any consistent agreement between political entities, cultural societies, or religious regimes that have the same concept in Human Right.
> 
> *TO YOUR QUESTION:*  How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?
> 
> Your argument that somehow these imaginary rights you are attempting to apply at various decision points along the timeline, simply are not real.  You cannot build your case that the Allied Powers did this or that in violation of this or that when the "rights" did not exist at that time.  The TWPS applied just as equally to the Jewish People as it might have for the Arab Palestinian.  As much as you would like to believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinian had some superior claim, special anointed right (inherent, inalienable, or otherwise), or other moral, legal or ethical argument ... the fact is, the customary law for thousands of years has to have settled these territorial disputes in a trail by combat; the victor wins all.  Even today, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), which made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; has been using terrorism, insurgencies and jihad to win by force that which they could not achieve through diplomacy.  Both HAMAS and the PLO declared a Jihad and now the HoAP use every opportunity to fraudulently instigate or incite a conflict and then frivolously charge before the international community that they are being trounced in a manner that is unfair.  This is all one and the same package.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Christians and Muslims, as the inhabitants of Palestine, had the legal right, as enunciated by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant._
> 
> All your shucking and jiving, all your childish  name calling e.g.  "Hostile Arab Palestinian" does not change the fact that you are full of shit and don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was not even in effect in 1948.
> 
> You are trying to suggest that Article 22 was a Mandate (something that must be obeyed).  It was not.  The Mandate _(the Allied Powers in agreement)_ was the Mandate _(the official commission to the British Mandatory to carry-out policy and objectives)_.
> 
> •  Entrust to a British Mandatory the administration of the territory of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, the Balfour Declaration...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Of course Article 22 was something that must be obeyed, or it would not have been included in the Covenant, you clown.  The Balfour Declaration was abrogated by Article 20 as it was incompatible with Article 22.  

*"ARTICLE 20.*
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Good post! 

Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?

Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?


----------



## montelatici

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good post!
> 
> Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?
> 
> Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?
Click to expand...


Indigenous was not a term used in the Covenant or the Mandate.  The legal term was "inhabitant"  and that is very easy to define.  An inhabitant of Europe, for example, is not an inhabitant of a location on another continent.


----------



## Coyote

montelatici said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good post!
> 
> Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?
> 
> Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous was not a term used in the Covenant or the Mandate.  The legal term was "inhabitant"  and that is very easy to define.  An inhabitant of Europe, for example, is not an inhabitant of a location on another continent.
Click to expand...


But if an inhabitent of Europe moves to Kenya then he becomes an inhabitent of his new country.


----------



## montelatici

Coyote said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good post!
> 
> Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?
> 
> Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indigenous was not a term used in the Covenant or the Mandate.  The legal term was "inhabitant"  and that is very easy to define.  An inhabitant of Europe, for example, is not an inhabitant of a location on another continent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if an inhabitent of Europe moves to Kenya then he becomes an inhabitent of his new country.
Click to expand...


Yes he/she does.  But at the time of writing, the inhabitants were overwhelmingly Christians and Muslims.   Transferring non-inhabitants to colonize the territory was, as the inhabitants declared in many official communications  to the Colonial Office, contrary to protecting the *"well-being and development"* of they, the inhabitants,  as required in Article 22.   Which, of course, proved to be true. 

"*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle *that the well-being and development *of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?
> 
> Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?




Two points:

1. There is a difference between national rights (sovereignty) and individual rights.  ie. We would agree, I hope, that while a Vietnamese resident should enjoy individual rights in her country of residence, this does not confer Vietnamese sovereignty in the territory of her residence.  

2.  Indigenous is not arbitrary.  It has a specific definition, and that definition is not bounded by time or the passage of years.  But by features such as a distinguishable culture, continuity, pre-invasion, etc.  (see other thread).


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is one status superior to the other in conferring rights?
> 
> Indiginous seems impossible to define because it seems somewhat arbritrary...how far back does one go to be considered "indiginous"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two points:
> 
> 1. There is a difference between national rights (sovereignty) and individual rights.  ie. We would agree, I hope, that while a Vietnamese resident should enjoy individual rights in her country of residence, this does not confer Vietnamese sovereignty in the territory of her residence.
> 
> 2.  Indigenous is not arbitrary.  It has a specific definition, and that definition is not bounded by time or the passage of years.  But by features such as a distinguishable culture, continuity, pre-invasion, etc.  (see other thread).
Click to expand...


The definition you provided is bullshit.  In any case Europeans are not indigenous to Palestine whatever religion.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The definition you provided is bullshit.



Really?  The UN working definition of indigenous is bullshit now?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition you provided is bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The UN working definition of indigenous is bullshit now?
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  That's why it is called a "working definition". Anyway, Europeans are not indigenous to Palestine.  That's all you need to know.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.

Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
*IMMIGRANT:*  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

*ALIEN:*  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.

1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.

There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.

3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.

This is* the* problem.


----------



## CMike

theliq said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was it ever an independent Muslim state?
> 
> It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
Click to expand...

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.


----------



## montelatici

CMike said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was it ever an independent Muslim state?
> 
> It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
Click to expand...


What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was it ever an independent Muslim state?
> 
> It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
Click to expand...

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say:  "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term.  But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.
> 
> Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
> ------------------------------
> *IMMIGRANT:*  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
> 
> *ALIEN:*  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
> ----------------------
> I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
> 
> 1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
> 2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
> 
> There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
> 
> 3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
> 
> This is* the* problem.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.  Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine.  The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers.  And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.

The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination."    It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say:  "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.
> 
> Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
> ------------------------------
> *IMMIGRANT:*  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
> 
> *ALIEN:*  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
> ----------------------
> I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
> 
> 1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
> 2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
> 
> There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
> 
> 3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
> 
> This is* the* problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.  Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine.  The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers.  And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
> 
> The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination."    It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.​
What do you mean by special privilege?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say:  "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.
> 
> Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
> ------------------------------
> *IMMIGRANT:*  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
> 
> *ALIEN:*  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
> ----------------------
> I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
> 
> 1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
> 2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
> 
> There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
> 
> 3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
> 
> This is* the* problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.  Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine.  The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers.  And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
> 
> The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination."    It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


As  Detective Chief Superintendent Christopher Foyle once said: "You know, I sometimes wonder why I do this job. And then I come across someone like you."   Second season, episode i. "Fifty Ships"

One of the constant points the Zionist bunch makes is that somehow, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is either not the instrument that legalized the Mandates and even if it did the term "inhabitant" has another meaning in the that English language.  Both claims are baseless.

Firstly, Article 22 first para. states: 
_"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of *such peoples* should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
_
Secondly, The first para of the Mandate for Palestine states: 
*"The Palestine Mandate*
*The Council of the League of Nations:*
_Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, f*or the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations *entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and....."
_
Of note is the fact that this paragraph is the first paragraph, absent the availability of the drafters for a judge to interview to determine what was meant, when a subsequent term is in conflict, the term that occurs first takes precedence under contract law.

Thirdly, Article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations states:
*ARTICLE 20.*
_The Members of the League severally agree that *this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, *and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

*In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
*_
Fourthly, The UN and the British independently, concluded that the settling "non-inhabitants" in Palestine was incompatible with the "well-being" of the Palestinians. The U.N. In United Nations A/364 of 3 Sept. 1947, Supplement 11, para. 150:

_"150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. *This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."*_

file:///Users/alfredfirmani/Documents/Personal/2015/A_364%20of%203%20September%201947.html

The British came to a similar conclusion earlier,  in the Report of the Royal Commission of July 1937, PART III
Chapter XX, para. 3.

_"The application to Palestine of the Mandate System in general and of the specific Mandate in particular implies the belief that the obligations thus undertaken towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively would prove in course of time to be mutually compatible owing to the conciliatory effect on the Palestinian Arabs of the material prosperity which Jewish immigration would bring in Palestine as a whole. That belief has not been justified, and there seems to be no hope of its being justified in the future."
_
Plan of partition - Summary of the UK Palestine Royal Commission (Peel Commission) report - League of Nations/Non-UN document (30 November 1937)

So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.


----------



## theliq

CMike said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Two points I would like to make.
> 
> I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced.  And the quote was exact.  In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.
> 
> I did not misrepresent anything.  HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable.  I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.
> 
> I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation.  Is that all you can do.
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine*, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.
> 
> In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, *Press Release PAL/169 **17 May 1948*, said in part:
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved.* In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."*​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.
> 
> _Recommends_
> to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
> 
> _ Requests that_
> 
> (a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​
> Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?
> 
> Link?
> 
> What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was it ever an independent Muslim state?
> 
> It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
Click to expand...

Yawn


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Yah, this is very strange approach.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> •••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Watch out Hoss,you could be laughing on the other side of you face


----------



## theliq

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was Palestine ever a country?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever an independent Muslim state?
> 
> It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
Click to expand...

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever an independent Muslim state?
> 
> It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.
> 
> 
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
Click to expand...


The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
Click to expand...


No that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Coyote

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Yah, this is very strange approach.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> •••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Watch out Hoss,you could be laughing on the other side of you face
Click to expand...


Is that like turning the other cheek?


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
Click to expand...

Hardly,but just like something Zionist Trash would say......hey ho,Indie you are such an unoriginal Bore,YAWN


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

I should know...I'm a Jew.
I make it my business to know what's on people's minds as I'm very outgoing and have a lot of non-Jewish friends and co-workers.
When I'm not around, I'm the Jew; in a rather affectionate way.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> 
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I should know...I'm a Jew.
> I make it my business to know what's on people's minds as I'm very outgoing and have a lot of non-Jewish friends and co-workers.
> When I'm not around, I'm the Jew; in a rather affectionate way.
Click to expand...


You're a Jew? What a surprise.


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly,but just like something Zionist Trash would say......hey ho,Indie you are such an unoriginal Bore,YAWN
Click to expand...

No, you are a bootlicker whose children will go to Church.
I know this for a fact because my wife's relatives and mine are just like you and all their children are intermarried and their grandchildren are already celebrating Christmas.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say:  "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​
> Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.
> 
> you keep confusing these two completely different groups.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.
> 
> Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
> ------------------------------
> *IMMIGRANT:*  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
> 
> *ALIEN:*  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
> ----------------------
> I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
> 
> 1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
> 2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
> 
> There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
> 
> 3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
> 
> This is* the* problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.  Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine.  The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers.  And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
> 
> The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination."    It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are missing the point.

The colonial settlers imported by the Zionists had no intent to identify themselves as a part of the existing society and were not accepted as part of them. They had no intent on being loyal citizens of Palestine. The base of the Mandate was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

They did not match the definition of immigrants as stated above. They do, however, match the definition of aliens - foreigners.

I don't see how they should have any rights at all in Palestine.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No that makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I should know...I'm a Jew.
> I make it my business to know what's on people's minds as I'm very outgoing and have a lot of non-Jewish friends and co-workers.
> When I'm not around, I'm the Jew; in a rather affectionate way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a Jew? What a surprise.
Click to expand...

Yes; that's why it's so easy for me to see through your nonsense.


----------



## theliq

Coyote said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Yah, this is very strange approach.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> The *Treaty of Lausanne* was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on* 24 July 1923.* Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, *Palestine had to already exist.* Britain had to wait for this to happen* before *it could come into effect.
> 
> The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] *and then came into effect on 29 September 1923*[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate.  First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty.  The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration.  Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years.  It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine.  A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.
> 
> Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920.  Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact.  Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized.  You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.
> 
> •••  If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal.  The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918).  The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920).  The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them.  Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Watch out Hoss,you could be laughing on the other side of you face
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that like turning the other cheek?
Click to expand...

Not really Coy,more when the opposite of what Hoss said happens,he will be not laughing at all.steve


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say:  "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.
> 
> Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
> ------------------------------
> *IMMIGRANT:*  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
> 
> *ALIEN:*  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
> ----------------------
> I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
> 
> 1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
> 2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
> 
> There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
> 
> 3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
> 
> This is* the* problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.  Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine.  The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers.  And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
> 
> The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination."    It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are missing the point.
> 
> The colonial settlers imported by the Zionists had no intent to identify themselves as a part of the existing society and were not accepted as part of them. They had no intent on being loyal citizens of Palestine. The base of the Mandate was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> They did not match the definition of immigrants as stated above. They do, however, match the definition of aliens - foreigners.
> 
> I don't see how they should have any rights at all in Palestine.
Click to expand...

Why not go back in time and kill Hitler or dismantle the UN.


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say:  "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep confusing terms and definitions.
> 
> The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. *The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters*. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.
> 
> The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.
> 
> Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
> ------------------------------
> *IMMIGRANT:*  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
> 
> *ALIEN:*  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
> ----------------------
> I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
> 
> 1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
> 2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
> 
> There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
> 
> 3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
> 
> This is* the* problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.  Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine.  The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers.  And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
> 
> The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination."    It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are missing the point.
> 
> The colonial settlers imported by the Zionists had no intent to identify themselves as a part of the existing society and were not accepted as part of them. They had no intent on being loyal citizens of Palestine. The base of the Mandate was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> They did not match the definition of immigrants as stated above. They do, however, match the definition of aliens - foreigners.
> 
> I don't see how they should have any rights at all in Palestine.
Click to expand...

Another Outstanding Insightful Post from the Main Man....Our Tinnie,Respect Sir......steve


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say:  "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is actually a trick question.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.
> 
> The Practical Exercise:  (UN Definition of:  Indigenous People)
> 
> •  Condition #1:  The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).  Her linage goes back that far.
> •  Condition #2:  I am a second generation American.  My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
> •  Condition #3   At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest.  They went to High School and College together.
> 
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
> ∆  Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"​
> The compound questions that need asked, are:
> •  When does a person become "indigenous?"
> •  And when is a person an "inhabitant?"
> 
> And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
> •  Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
> •  Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.
> 
> Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
> ------------------------------
> *IMMIGRANT:*  In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence.  Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.   The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.
> 
> *ALIEN:*  By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
> ----------------------
> I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.
> 
> 1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
> 2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.
> 
> There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.
> 
> 3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.
> 
> This is* the* problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.  Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine.  The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers.  And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.
> 
> The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination."    It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are missing the point.
> 
> The colonial settlers imported by the Zionists had no intent to identify themselves as a part of the existing society and were not accepted as part of them. They had no intent on being loyal citizens of Palestine. The base of the Mandate was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.
> 
> They did not match the definition of immigrants as stated above. They do, however, match the definition of aliens - foreigners.
> 
> I don't see how they should have any rights at all in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not go back in time and kill Hitler or dismantle the UN.
Click to expand...

Yawn


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.
> 
> CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
Click to expand...

I suppose you think you are funny HaHa......trouble is we still see no answer from the BORE,just unoriginal playground speak


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think you are funny HaHa......trouble is we still see no answer from the BORE,just unoriginal playground speak
Click to expand...


Real, not funny.
That's why I don't kiss barbarian a$$.


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called?  Primis?
> 
> 
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think you are funny HaHa......trouble is we still see no answer from the BORE,just unoriginal playground speak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real, not funny.
> That's why I don't kiss barbarian a$$.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't,because you are the Barbarian.....Boring Unoriginal Twat...Get a Life


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?
> 
> What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?
> 
> That's all you need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think you are funny HaHa......trouble is we still see no answer from the BORE,just unoriginal playground speak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real, not funny.
> That's why I don't kiss barbarian a$$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you don't,because you are the Barbarian.....Boring Unoriginal Twat...Get a Life
Click to expand...

You can't be a Jew...not a trace of wit.
Catch a few Marx Brothers films.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  theliq,  et al,

There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.



montelatici said:


> So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think you really believe that.  But that suppose  _*(JUST SUPPOSE)*_  that your claim here is true.  What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today _(here and now)_?

A:  Probably not much.
•  The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home.  There is today a Jewish National Home.

•  The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.

•  What is the basis in fact:  The HoAP claim:
That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:

Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.​Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny.  Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:

Compensation, _(Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)_
Benefits, _(Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)_
Recognition _(The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)_
Appreciation _(A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)_
There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed.   There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.



theliq said:


> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve


*(COMMENT)*

Again, this is a variation on a theme.  The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II).  This was something the Arabs of Palestine said _(in no uncertain terms)_ never recognize the validity of  ---  or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations.  The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.  Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people.  In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.





The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation.  The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.

None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.



montelatici said:


> Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations.  And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.



*(COMMENT)*

Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.

The Arab Higher Committee in 1948:  "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."

The Palestine National Charter of 1968:  "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."​I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary.  One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws.  One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces.  Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.

No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact).  It was intended for their use.  Not external use.  And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers.  Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.

Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab.  The Arabs had no standing.  This was an agreement between the member nations.

Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation.  Parties _(the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks)_ of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others _(such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey)_ will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.

A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant _(understood without being openly expressed)_. When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.

Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit.  The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.​


montelatici said:


> According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states.  The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant.  The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant.  Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant.  The Covenant was not true international law.  The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US.  So were about ≈ 80 nations.

AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.



montelatici said:


> Oh dear.  Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
> 
> •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••​
> ARTICLE 20.
> The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.


*(COMMENT)*

And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" _(implied without being stated)_.

The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  theliq,  et al,
> 
> There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you really believe that.  But that suppose  _*(JUST SUPPOSE)*_  that your claim here is true.  What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today _(here and now)_?
> 
> A:  Probably not much.
> •  The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home.  There is today a Jewish National Home.
> 
> •  The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.
> 
> •  What is the basis in fact:  The HoAP claim:
> That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
> The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
> Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
> The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:
> 
> Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
> Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
> Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.​Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny.  Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:
> 
> Compensation, _(Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)_
> Benefits, _(Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)_
> Recognition _(The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)_
> Appreciation _(A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)_
> There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed.   There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, this is a variation on a theme.  The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II).  This was something the Arabs of Palestine said _(in no uncertain terms)_ never recognize the validity of  ---  or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations.  The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.  Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people.  In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.
> 
> View attachment 59486​
> The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation.  The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.
> 
> None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations.  And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
> [/QUOTE]
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee in 1948:  "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
> 
> The Palestine National Charter of 1968:  "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."​I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary.  One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws.  One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces.  Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.
> 
> No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact).  It was intended for their use.  Not external use.  And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers.  Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
> 
> Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab.  The Arabs had no standing.  This was an agreement between the member nations.
> 
> Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation.  Parties _(the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks)_ of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others _(such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey)_ will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
> 
> A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant _(understood without being openly expressed)_. When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.
> 
> Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit.  The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states.  The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant.  The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant.  Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant.  The Covenant was not true international law.  The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US.  So were about ≈ 80 nations.
> 
> AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear.  Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
> 
> •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••​
> ARTICLE 20.
> The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" _(implied without being stated)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You are wrong on so many counts.  Let's just address two.

1. The "Arabs" had "no-standing".  

Of course they had standing, as the "inhabitants" of the territories formerly governed by the losing powers, they were the only ones to have "standing".  Non-inhabitants, had no standing.  I don't understand if you are playing dumb or believe you will fool others with such a ridiculous statement.

2. The first intent of the Allies was the establishment of a Jewish Home.  The first intent of the Allies, with respect to "those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them" was as stated in the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  There is no mention of a Jewish Home.  Any notion of colonizing one of the territories (which included Palestine) mentioned in Article 22 with belligerent and hostile non-inhabitants (the Jews) would, contravene the intent of the Allies to ensure the "well-being and development of such peoples".    As such, Britain was obliged to abrogate any prior agreement that was in contravention of the Covenant, as per Article 20 of the Covenant, prior to signing the Covenant. 

It is so clear, direct and simple that no manner of obfuscation or fanatical leaps of logical fantasy can change the obvious. 

*"ARTICLE 22.*
_To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and *which are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

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

*"ARTICLE 20.*
*The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
_


----------



## abu afak

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  theliq,  et al,
> 
> There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you really believe that.  But that suppose  _*(JUST SUPPOSE)*_  that your claim here is true.  What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today _(here and now)_?
> 
> A:  Probably not much.
> •  The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home.  There is today a Jewish National Home.
> 
> •  The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.
> 
> •  What is the basis in fact:  The HoAP claim:
> That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
> The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
> Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
> The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:
> 
> Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
> Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
> Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.​Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny.  Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:
> 
> Compensation, _(Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)_
> Benefits, _(Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)_
> Recognition _(The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)_
> Appreciation _(A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)_
> There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed.   There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, this is a variation on a theme.  The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II).  This was something the Arabs of Palestine said _(in no uncertain terms)_ never recognize the validity of  ---  or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations.  The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.  Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people.  In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.
> 
> View attachment 59486​
> The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation.  The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.
> 
> None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations.  And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
> [/QUOTE]
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee in 1948:  "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
> 
> The Palestine National Charter of 1968:  "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."​I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary.  One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws.  One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces.  Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.
> 
> No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact).  It was intended for their use.  Not external use.  And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers.  Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
> 
> Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab.  The Arabs had no standing.  This was an agreement between the member nations.
> 
> Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation.  Parties _(the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks)_ of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others _(such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey)_ will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
> 
> A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant _(understood without being openly expressed)_. When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.
> 
> Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit.  The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states.  The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant.  The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant.  Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant.  The Covenant was not true international law.  The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US.  So were about ≈ 80 nations.
> 
> AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear.  Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
> 
> •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••​
> ARTICLE 20.
> The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" _(implied without being stated)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong on so many counts.  Let's just address two.
> 
> 1. The "Arabs" had "no-standing".
> 
> Of course they had standing, as the "inhabitants" of the territories formerly governed by the losing powers, they were the only ones to have "standing".  Non-inhabitants, had no standing.  I don't understand if you are playing dumb or believe you will fool others with such a ridiculous statement.
> 
> 2. The first intent of the Allies was the establishment of a Jewish Home.  The first intent of the Allies, with respect to "those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them" was as stated in the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  There is no mention of a Jewish Home.  Any notion of colonizing one of the territories (which included Palestine) mentioned in Article 22 with belligerent and hostile non-inhabitants (the Jews) would, contravene the intent of the Allies to ensure the "well-being and development of such peoples".    As such, Britain was obliged to abrogate any prior agreement that was in contravention of the Covenant, as per Article 20 of the Covenant, prior to signing the Covenant.
> 
> It is so clear, direct and simple that no manner of obfuscation or fanatical leaps of logical fantasy can change the obvious.
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and *which are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
> 
> *"ARTICLE 20.*
> *The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."_
Click to expand...

Wrong Yet again MontelCheati.
You always take documents Out of Context of other previous and contemporary agreements.

03b- Mandate Violates

*Myth: The “Mandate” Violates Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*

The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addressed Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the “Mandate for Palestine” violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,45 arguing that they are the communities mentioned in paragraph 4:

_“As to the claim, argued before us by Arab witnesses, that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because it is not in accordance with paragraph 4 thereof, we would point out (a) that the provisional recognition of ‘certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire’ as independent nations is permissive; the words are ‘can be provisionally recognised,’ not ‘will’ or ‘shall’: (b) that the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the Mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League: 
(c) that the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Balfour Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have to be treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sèvres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate.

“This particular question is of less practical importance than it might seem to be. For Article 2 of the Mandate requires ‘the development of self-governing institutions’; and, read in the light of the general intention of the Mandate System (of which something will be said presently), this requirement implies, in our judgment, the ultimate establishment of independence.

*“(3) The field [Territory] in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field [Territory] under Article 25.”* [E.H., *That excluded 77% of historic Palestine—the territory east of the Jordan River, what became later Trans-Jordan].46*_

The Treaty of Sèvres, in Section VII, Articles 94 and 95, makes it clear in each case who are the inhabitants referred to in Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Article 94 distinctly indicates that Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applies to the Arab inhabitants living within the areas covered by the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia. The Article reads:

“The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.

“Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone...”

*Article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres, however, makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was NOT to be applied to the Arab inhabitants living within the area to be delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine,” but Only to the Jews. The Article reads:

“The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country…”47*

The second and third paragraphs of the preamble of the “Mandate for Palestine” therefore follow and read:

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, *in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country; and

“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”48 *

Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres and the “Mandate for Palestine” make it clear:

The “inhabitants” of the territory for whom the “Mandate for Palestine” was created, who according to the Mandate were *“not yet able” to govern themselves and for whom self-determination was a “sacred trust,” were NOT Palestinians, or even Arabs. The “Mandate for Palestine” was created by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations, for the Jewish People.*

-


----------



## abu afak

Part 2. SAME Avalon Link.
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

*The Palestine Mandate*

*The Council of the League of Nations:*

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers *have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas* recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and*

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows..​
THAT was te Context of Article 22 MontelCheati Dishonestly Omitted to reverse it's meaning
Neither he nor Tinhead could EVER debate me.
Tho MonelCheati tries his Official-Looking Link DUMPS out of conext.
Have a nice page Akhmed.
bye
`


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  theliq,  et al,
> 
> There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you really believe that.  But that suppose  _*(JUST SUPPOSE)*_  that your claim here is true.  What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today _(here and now)_?
> 
> A:  Probably not much.
> •  The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home.  There is today a Jewish National Home.
> 
> •  The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.
> 
> •  What is the basis in fact:  The HoAP claim:
> That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
> The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
> Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
> The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:
> 
> Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
> Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
> Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.​Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny.  Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:
> 
> Compensation, _(Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)_
> Benefits, _(Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)_
> Recognition _(The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)_
> Appreciation _(A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)_
> There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed.   There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, this is a variation on a theme.  The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II).  This was something the Arabs of Palestine said _(in no uncertain terms)_ never recognize the validity of  ---  or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations.  The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.  Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people.  In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.
> 
> View attachment 59486​
> The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation.  The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.
> 
> None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations.  And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee in 1948:  "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
> 
> The Palestine National Charter of 1968:  "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."​I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary.  One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws.  One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces.  Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.
> 
> No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact).  It was intended for their use.  Not external use.  And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers.  Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
> 
> Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab.  The Arabs had no standing.  This was an agreement between the member nations.
> 
> Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation.  Parties _(the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks)_ of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others _(such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey)_ will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
> 
> A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant _(understood without being openly expressed)_. When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.
> 
> Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit.  The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states.  The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant.  The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant.  Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant.  The Covenant was not true international law.  The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US.  So were about ≈ 80 nations.
> 
> AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear.  Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
> 
> •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••​
> ARTICLE 20.
> The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" _(implied without being stated)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well this is not exactly true.  This is an appeal for sympathy.



P F Tinmore said:


> 1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.


*(COMMENT)*

You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians.  That would not be correct.

The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people.  What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

abu afak said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  theliq,  et al,
> 
> There are a couple of things here that caught my eye.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't think you really believe that.  But that suppose  _*(JUST SUPPOSE)*_  that your claim here is true.  What difference would it make to solving the conditions of today _(here and now)_?
> 
> A:  Probably not much.
> •  The first intent of the Allied Powers was to establish a Jewish National Home.  There is today a Jewish National Home.
> 
> •  The mixed inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory were occupied by the EOTA; not much differently then the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are occupied today.
> 
> •  What is the basis in fact:  The HoAP claim:
> That the defunct Covenant to the League of Nations (dissolved since 1946) was violated.
> The Jewish People are surround by Hostile Arabs and underseige in a fashion not so different from the past.
> Each side claims the otherside is dabbling in "propaganda."
> The HoAP wants to be rewarded for:
> 
> Their collaboration on the side of the Central Powers in the Great War...
> Their collaboration on the side of the Axis Powers in WWII...
> Their disruptive actions and criminal activities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.​Rewarding the Palestinian's compliance in societal development is the flip-side of punishing their disobedience or harmful behaviors. It is western seduction in the place of Islamic tyranny.  Every community of nations needs a strategic reward system for its member nations that addresses:
> 
> Compensation, _(Either economic, commercial, or political rewards.)_
> Benefits, _(Technological, scientific and industrial modernization.)_
> Recognition _(The praise and esteem of being singled-out as having accomplished something special.)_
> Appreciation _(A salute by the membership for its contributions to the health of the community.)_
> There is nothing in evidence to support the assertion that the Palestinian's position would have changed.   There is no reason to suspect that there would have lead to improvements in compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, this is a variation on a theme.  The original 1948 borders (at the time of the announcement of independence) were based on the recommendation culminating in the adoption of Resolution 181(II).  This was something the Arabs of Palestine said _(in no uncertain terms)_ never recognize the validity of  ---  or the authority of the United Nations to make such recommendations.  The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.  Over the past (near) century (since the Balfour Declaration), influential, disruptive and developmentally unhelpful Arab Palestinian interests have retarded the commercial, economic, and political improvements for the Arab Palestinian people.  In fact, every move the leadership of the Palestinian People have made has resulted in the exact opposite.
> 
> View attachment 59486​
> The hostile influence, both inside and outside Palestine, are attempting to defy the determination of the Allied Powers, the steps preparatory to independence set by the General Assembly, and the actually outcomes of more than one war fought over the issues --- in a deliberate effort to alter by force the establishment of the Jewish National Home --- and --- the safety, security, and preservation of the Jewish culture, the Jewish People and the integrity of the Jewish Nation.  The Jewish People face today, the very same mentality in the HoAP they have faced throughout history; to include mentality of the Palestinians of the 1948 War of Independence by leaders that collaborated with the Axis Powers and Nazi Regime.
> 
> None of this would have changed, and it is very likely that the plight of the Jewish National Home would have been put further in danger by the disparity in wealth between the Jewish and Arab people.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations.  And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power.  In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.
> [/QUOTE]
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, actually, it is the Arab Palestinians that have said the Mandate was not legitimate on a couple of occasions.
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee in 1948:  "The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom."
> 
> The Palestine National Charter of 1968:  "The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."​I agree that, for their time, during their period of use, they were valid documents; but unnecessary.  One of the many reasons the League of Nations failed was that it had too many flaws.  One of those flaws is that the organization as a whole was subject to manipulation by outside forces.  Just as the various delegations of Arabs attempt to Manipulate and reinterpret the Covenant or Charters for which they had no hand in the development of.
> 
> No one can argue that the Allied Powers, in 1920, decided then to establish a Mandate (several in fact).  It was intended for their use.  Not external use.  And in the 1920 deliberations, the Allied Powers decided to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory that had been renounced in title and rights to the Allied Powers.  Again, the Treaties between the Allied Powers, first with the Ottoman Empire --- then with the Turkish Republic --- were not for the benefit of the enemy population, but between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
> 
> Article 22 was not for the use of the Arab.  The Arabs had no standing.  This was an agreement between the member nations.
> 
> Consider the perspective of those member nations entering into a Covenant; excluding others from activity participation.  Parties _(the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks)_ of a Covenant have the reasonable expectation that others _(such as the enemy population of the territories situated outside the frontiers of Turkey)_ will not interfere with the contractual relationship the Allied Powers and the Ottoman/Turks.
> 
> A member nation's political relationships is an important part of their diplomacy. Most nations would says that the relationships established by the Covenant are crucial in maintaining territory and sovereignty interests. The relationship between the Parties protects the members interest from unjustified tampering with the intent of the Covenant _(understood without being openly expressed)_. When such tampering occurs, it may be tortious interference, and may harm the success and objectives of the original intent.
> 
> Such is the nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinian trying, for their own benefit and gainful exploitation, inject themselves into a Covenant for which they were not a member for their own benefit.  The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere in a promise between two completely different parties.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states.  The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again, the Article 22 Covenant arrangement was between the 45 to 65 member of the Covenant.  The Arab Palestinians did not have a say, nor could they use the Covenant to bar or stop an action of a member of the Covenant.  Similarly, the Arab Palestinian could not force a member to take some action in accordance with the Covenant.  The Covenant was not true international law.  The US was not a member of the League, the Covenant had no impact in any manner on the US.  So were about ≈ 80 nations.
> 
> AND, the Covenant was dissolved in 1946, before the decision to partition the remainder of the (former) territory under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear.  Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.
> 
> •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••    •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••   •••      •••​
> ARTICLE 20.
> The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And once again, if no member of the Covenant had an objection to an action taken by another member of the Covenant, that was considered "tacit approval" _(implied without being stated)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian cannot interfere with the decision made between the Allied Powers relative to an obligation to a Covenant; a commitment for which the Arab Palestinians was not a party.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong on so many counts.  Let's just address two.
> 
> 1. The "Arabs" had "no-standing".
> 
> Of course they had standing, as the "inhabitants" of the territories formerly governed by the losing powers, they were the only ones to have "standing".  Non-inhabitants, had no standing.  I don't understand if you are playing dumb or believe you will fool others with such a ridiculous statement.
> 
> 2. The first intent of the Allies was the establishment of a Jewish Home.  The first intent of the Allies, with respect to "those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them" was as stated in the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  There is no mention of a Jewish Home.  Any notion of colonizing one of the territories (which included Palestine) mentioned in Article 22 with belligerent and hostile non-inhabitants (the Jews) would, contravene the intent of the Allies to ensure the "well-being and development of such peoples".    As such, Britain was obliged to abrogate any prior agreement that was in contravention of the Covenant, as per Article 20 of the Covenant, prior to signing the Covenant.
> 
> It is so clear, direct and simple that no manner of obfuscation or fanatical leaps of logical fantasy can change the obvious.
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and *which are inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
> 
> *"ARTICLE 20.*
> *The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong Yet again MontelCheati.
> You always take documents Out of Context of other previous and contemporary agreements.
> 
> 03b- Mandate Violates
> 
> *Myth: The “Mandate” Violates Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addressed Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the “Mandate for Palestine” violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,45 arguing that they are the communities mentioned in paragraph 4:
> 
> _“As to the claim, argued before us by Arab witnesses, that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because it is not in accordance with paragraph 4 thereof, we would point out (a) that the provisional recognition of ‘certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire’ as independent nations is permissive; the words are ‘can be provisionally recognised,’ not ‘will’ or ‘shall’: (b) that the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the Mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League:
> (c) that the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Balfour Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have to be treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sèvres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate.
> 
> “This particular question is of less practical importance than it might seem to be. For Article 2 of the Mandate requires ‘the development of self-governing institutions’; and, read in the light of the general intention of the Mandate System (of which something will be said presently), this requirement implies, in our judgment, the ultimate establishment of independence.
> 
> *“(3) The field [Territory] in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field [Territory] under Article 25.”* [E.H., *That excluded 77% of historic Palestine—the territory east of the Jordan River, what became later Trans-Jordan].46*_
> 
> The Treaty of Sèvres, in Section VII, Articles 94 and 95, makes it clear in each case who are the inhabitants referred to in Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
> 
> Article 94 distinctly indicates that Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applies to the Arab inhabitants living within the areas covered by the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia. The Article reads:
> 
> “The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.
> 
> “Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone...”
> 
> *Article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres, however, makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was NOT to be applied to the Arab inhabitants living within the area to be delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine,” but Only to the Jews. The Article reads:
> 
> “The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country…”47*
> 
> The second and third paragraphs of the preamble of the “Mandate for Palestine” therefore follow and read:
> 
> “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, *in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country; and
> 
> “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”48 *
> 
> Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres and the “Mandate for Palestine” make it clear:
> 
> The “inhabitants” of the territory for whom the “Mandate for Palestine” was created, who according to the Mandate were *“not yet able” to govern themselves and for whom self-determination was a “sacred trust,” were NOT Palestinians, or even Arabs. The “Mandate for Palestine” was created by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations, for the Jewish People.*
> 
> -
Click to expand...


LOL. You present a propaganda piece and expect anyone to take it seriously. 

By the way, the Treaty of Sevres was annulled and was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, in any case, articles 94 and 95 do not make anything clear. 

The Mandate for Palestine, in its first paragraph indicates the purpose is to give effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Article 22 in its first paragraph states that the Mandatory is entrusted with the well-being and development of the inhabitants.  

Mandate:

"*The Council of the League of Nations:*
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire...."

Covenant:

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

The inhabitants the Covenant refers to were the people living in Palestine, 95 percent of whom were Christian and Muslim Palestinians, not Jews living in Europe and elsewhere.

The most definitive description of the situation is found in paras. 148, 149 and 150 of  the United Nation's A/364 of 3 September 1947 as articulated by the UN's Special Committee on Palestine, it fully confirms the facts.
* 
UNITED*
*NATIONS*​*A



*
"148. When the Mandate was approved, all concerned were aware of the existence of an overwhelming Arab majority in Palestine. More over, the King-Crane Report, among others, had warned that the Zionist program could not be carried out except by force of arms. It would seem clear, therefore, that the provisions of the Mandate relating to the Jewish National Home could be based only on the assumption that sooner or later the Arab fears would gradually be overcome and that Arab hostility to the terms of the Mandate would in time weaken and disappear.

149. This seems to have been the basic assumption, but it proved to be a false one, since the history of the last twenty-five years has established the fact that not only the creation of a Jewish State but even the continuation of the building of the Jewish National Home by restricted immigration could be implemented only by the use of some considerable force. It cannot be properly contended that the use of force as a means of establishing the National Home was either intended by the Mandate or implied by its provisions. On the contrary, the provisions of the Mandate should preclude any systematic use of force for the purpose of its application. In its preamble, *the Mandate states that the Principal Allied Powers agreed to entrust Palestine to a mandatory Power for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.147/ The guiding principle of that Article was the well-being of peoples not yet able to stand by themselves.*

150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. *To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant.*

A/364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well this is not exactly true.  This is an appeal for sympathy.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians.  That would not be correct.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people.  What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Palestinians were the "inhabitants" that were granted the rights enunciated in the Covenant of the League of Nations. This was articulated in UN A/364, to wit:

149............On the contrary, the provisions of the Mandate should preclude any systematic use of force for the purpose of its application. In its preamble, the Mandate states that* the Principal Allied Powers agreed to entrust Palestine to a mandatory Power for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.147/ The guiding principle of that Article was the well-being of peoples not yet able to stand by themselves.*

150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. *To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant.*
*
A/364 of 3 September 1947*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well this is not exactly true.  This is an appeal for sympathy.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians.  That would not be correct.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people.  What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

And you smear them and call them names for merely asserting their rights.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,
P F Tinmore, et al,

My, but I have to chuckle at this.

But let's start out by remembering what exactly A/364 of 3 September is (exactly).  It is the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) Report which contained the set of Recommendations the General Assembly used to promulgate and ultimately adopt UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II); better known as the Partition Plan.

But you cannot use this report to solely support one perspective or the other.  The report addresses BOTH points of view.  Just as the does say what our friends have highlighted and bolded --- it also present the opposite point of view for the UN General Assembly to consider before rendering a decision:


145. Nevertheless, neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Mandate precluded the eventual creation of a Jewish State. The Mandate in its Preamble recognized, with regard to the Jewish people, the "grounds for reconstituting their National Home". By providing, as one of the main obligations of the mandatory Power the facilitation of Jewish immigration, it conferred upon the Jews an opportunity, through large-scale immigration, to create eventually a Jewish State with a Jewish majority.

146. Both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate involved international commitments to the Jewish people as a whole. It was obvious that these commitments were not limited only to the Jewish population of Palestine, since at the time there were only some 80,000 Jews there.

147. This would imply that all Jews in the world who wish to go to Palestine would have the right to do so. This view, however, would seem to be unrealistic in the sense that a country as small and poor as Palestine could never accommodate all the Jews in the world.
​

And the Report contains perspectives that are neither on the side of the Jewish or Arab:

180. The spirit which prevailed at the creation of the Mandate for Palestine was explained by Lord Balfour at the opening of the eighteenth session of the Council of the League of Nations as follows:

*"The mandates are not our creation. The mandates are neither made by the League, nor can they, in substance, be altered by the League. . . .*

*"Remember that a mandate is a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they obtained over conquered territories*. It is imposed by the Allied and Associated Powers themselves in the interests of what they conceived to be the general welfare of mankind and they have asked the League of Nations to assist them in seeing that this policy should be carried into effect. But the League of Nations is not the author of the policy, but its instrument. It is not they who have invented the system of mandates; it is not they who have laid down the general lines on which the three classes of mandates are framed. Their duty, let me repeat, is to see, in the first place, that the terms of the mandates conform to the principles of the Covenant, and in the second place, that these terms shall, in fact, regulate the policy of the mandatory Powers in the mandated territories.

"Now, it is clear from this statement, that both those who hope and those who fear that what, I believe, has been called the Balfour Declaration is going to suffer substantial modifications, are in error. The fears are not justified; the hopes are not justified. . . . *The general lines of policy stand and must stand.*​


montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well this is not exactly true.  This is an appeal for sympathy.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians.  That would not be correct.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people.  What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were the "inhabitants" that were granted the rights enunciated in the Covenant of the League of Nations. This was articulated in UN A/364, to wit:
> 
> 149............On the contrary, the provisions of the Mandate should preclude any systematic use of force for the purpose of its application. In its preamble, the Mandate states that* the Principal Allied Powers agreed to entrust Palestine to a mandatory Power for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.147/ The guiding principle of that Article was the well-being of peoples not yet able to stand by themselves.*
> 
> 150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. *To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947*
Click to expand...


*(COMMENT)*

Don't get overly excited about the bold part by our pro-Palestinian friends.  After the members weighed all the testimony, to include the
"Political History of Palestine under *British Administration" **A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947*, the General Assembly still made their decision that the Arab Palestinian did try to undermine and attempted to defy through the used of military force, the resolution of the General Assembly. 

Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (UN Document A/364 3 September 1947)  including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee; that being General Assembly Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> My, but I have to chuckle at this.
> 
> But let's start out by remembering what exactly A/364 of 3 September is (exactly).  It is the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) Report which contained the set of Recommendations the General Assembly used to promulgate and ultimately adopt UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II); better known as the Partition Plan.
> 
> But you cannot use this report to solely support one perspective or the other.  The report addresses BOTH points of view.  Just as the does say what our friends have highlighted and bolded --- it also present the opposite point of view for the UN General Assembly to consider before rendering a decision:
> 
> 
> 145. Nevertheless, neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Mandate precluded the eventual creation of a Jewish State. The Mandate in its Preamble recognized, with regard to the Jewish people, the "grounds for reconstituting their National Home". By providing, as one of the main obligations of the mandatory Power the facilitation of Jewish immigration, it conferred upon the Jews an opportunity, through large-scale immigration, to create eventually a Jewish State with a Jewish majority.
> 
> 146. Both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate involved international commitments to the Jewish people as a whole. It was obvious that these commitments were not limited only to the Jewish population of Palestine, since at the time there were only some 80,000 Jews there.
> 
> 147. This would imply that all Jews in the world who wish to go to Palestine would have the right to do so. This view, however, would seem to be unrealistic in the sense that a country as small and poor as Palestine could never accommodate all the Jews in the world.
> ​
> 
> And the Report contains perspectives that are neither on the side of the Jewish or Arab:
> 180. The spirit which prevailed at the creation of the Mandate for Palestine was explained by Lord Balfour at the opening of the eighteenth session of the Council of the League of Nations as follows:
> 
> *"The mandates are not our creation. The mandates are neither made by the League, nor can they, in substance, be altered by the League. . . .*
> 
> *"Remember that a mandate is a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they obtained over conquered territories*. It is imposed by the Allied and Associated Powers themselves in the interests of what they conceived to be the general welfare of mankind and they have asked the League of Nations to assist them in seeing that this policy should be carried into effect. But the League of Nations is not the author of the policy, but its instrument. It is not they who have invented the system of mandates; it is not they who have laid down the general lines on which the three classes of mandates are framed. Their duty, let me repeat, is to see, in the first place, that the terms of the mandates conform to the principles of the Covenant, and in the second place, that these terms shall, in fact, regulate the policy of the mandatory Powers in the mandated territories.
> 
> "Now, it is clear from this statement, that both those who hope and those who fear that what, I believe, has been called the Balfour Declaration is going to suffer substantial modifications, are in error. The fears are not justified; the hopes are not justified. . . . *The general lines of policy stand and must stand.*​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well this is not exactly true.  This is an appeal for sympathy.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1001 excuses why Palestinians have no rights.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You act as if the only people in the world having limitations placed on them were the Palestinians.  That would not be correct.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian had the same rights as did any other people.  What the Palestinians did not have is "sovereign rights" to territory that was relinquished to the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were the "inhabitants" that were granted the rights enunciated in the Covenant of the League of Nations. This was articulated in UN A/364, to wit:
> 
> 149............On the contrary, the provisions of the Mandate should preclude any systematic use of force for the purpose of its application. In its preamble, the Mandate states that* the Principal Allied Powers agreed to entrust Palestine to a mandatory Power for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.147/ The guiding principle of that Article was the well-being of peoples not yet able to stand by themselves.*
> 
> 150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. *To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't get overly excited about the bold part by our pro-Palestinian friends.  After the members weighed all the testimony, to include the
> "Political History of Palestine under *British Administration" **A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947*, the General Assembly still made their decision that the Arab Palestinian did try to undermine and attempted to defy through the used of military force, the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (UN Document A/364 3 September 1947)  including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee; that being General Assembly Resolution 181(II), 29 November 1947.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You really love that external interference.


----------



## montelatici

And, thanks to Rocco's cut and past, we have the trump of trumps!


_"Their duty, let me repeat, is to see, in the first place,_* that the terms of the mandates conform to the principles of the Covenant,"

Given that the Covenant says nothing about the Balfour Declaration, and the fact that it was determined that the Balfour Declaration (besides the fact that it was to have been abrogated earlier) was in direct contravention with the Covenant's Article 22, which entrusted the Mandatory with the "well-being and development" of the inhabitants (the Palestinians, not people from elsewhere) we can say that it is an open and shut case.

Thank you Rocco.



*


----------



## P F Tinmore

From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?



			
				SHUSHA said:
			
		

> Well, Tinmore has admitted that he believes the "occupation" includes all lands under the sovereignty of Israel as well as those which remain disputed. So, for him, the "occupation" is any sort of existence of Israel. Which is on par with a good majority of Palestinians and Muslims.
> 
> Having admitted that, he has failed to provided information about what Israel must do to rectify the situation. I suspect he avoids it because even he realizes his response is somewhat unsavory.



That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.

I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUSHA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore has admitted that he believes the "occupation" includes all lands under the sovereignty of Israel as well as those which remain disputed. So, for him, the "occupation" is any sort of existence of Israel. Which is on par with a good majority of Palestinians and Muslims.
> 
> Having admitted that, he has failed to provided information about what Israel must do to rectify the situation. I suspect he avoids it because even he realizes his response is somewhat unsavory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
Click to expand...


So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUSHA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore has admitted that he believes the "occupation" includes all lands under the sovereignty of Israel as well as those which remain disputed. So, for him, the "occupation" is any sort of existence of Israel. Which is on par with a good majority of Palestinians and Muslims.
> 
> Having admitted that, he has failed to provided information about what Israel must do to rectify the situation. I suspect he avoids it because even he realizes his response is somewhat unsavory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?
Click to expand...

End the occupation.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUSHA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore has admitted that he believes the "occupation" includes all lands under the sovereignty of Israel as well as those which remain disputed. So, for him, the "occupation" is any sort of existence of Israel. Which is on par with a good majority of Palestinians and Muslims.
> 
> Having admitted that, he has failed to provided information about what Israel must do to rectify the situation. I suspect he avoids it because even he realizes his response is somewhat unsavory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> End the occupation.
Click to expand...

The Hamas Charter will not magically cease to exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUSHA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore has admitted that he believes the "occupation" includes all lands under the sovereignty of Israel as well as those which remain disputed. So, for him, the "occupation" is any sort of existence of Israel. Which is on par with a good majority of Palestinians and Muslims.
> 
> Having admitted that, he has failed to provided information about what Israel must do to rectify the situation. I suspect he avoids it because even he realizes his response is somewhat unsavory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> End the occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Hamas Charter will not magically cease to exist.
Click to expand...

They should change the name to the Israel Charter. Nobody else uses it.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUSHA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore has admitted that he believes the "occupation" includes all lands under the sovereignty of Israel as well as those which remain disputed. So, for him, the "occupation" is any sort of existence of Israel. Which is on par with a good majority of Palestinians and Muslims.
> 
> Having admitted that, he has failed to provided information about what Israel must do to rectify the situation. I suspect he avoids it because even he realizes his response is somewhat unsavory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> End the occupation.
Click to expand...


Yes.  But as you stated the "occupation" includes ALL of the land -- so what would you consider the end of the occupation to look like?  Be specific.  How will you know the occupation has ended?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUSHA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore has admitted that he believes the "occupation" includes all lands under the sovereignty of Israel as well as those which remain disputed. So, for him, the "occupation" is any sort of existence of Israel. Which is on par with a good majority of Palestinians and Muslims.
> 
> Having admitted that, he has failed to provided information about what Israel must do to rectify the situation. I suspect he avoids it because even he realizes his response is somewhat unsavory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> End the occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as you stated the "occupation" includes ALL of the land -- so what would you consider the end of the occupation to look like?  Be specific.  How will you know the occupation has ended?
Click to expand...

When all of the refugees and internally displaced go back home.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUSHA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Tinmore has admitted that he believes the "occupation" includes all lands under the sovereignty of Israel as well as those which remain disputed. So, for him, the "occupation" is any sort of existence of Israel. Which is on par with a good majority of Palestinians and Muslims.
> 
> Having admitted that, he has failed to provided information about what Israel must do to rectify the situation. I suspect he avoids it because even he realizes his response is somewhat unsavory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> End the occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as you stated the "occupation" includes ALL of the land -- so what would you consider the end of the occupation to look like?  Be specific.  How will you know the occupation has ended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When all of the refugees and internally displaced go back home.
Click to expand...


Wait, what?  Really?  All the Palestinian refugees?  Or both the Palestinian refugees and the Jewish ones?  Or all the Palestinian refugees and all their descendants?  Or all the Palestinians refugees and their descendants AND all the Jewish refugees and their descendants?  Where's home (specifically -- the exact house, the general neighborhood, somewhere in the same city, or anywhere in the territory)?  

And you are claiming that nothing else matters?  That the be all and end all of the "occupation" is only about those displaced?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> End the occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as you stated the "occupation" includes ALL of the land -- so what would you consider the end of the occupation to look like?  Be specific.  How will you know the occupation has ended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When all of the refugees and internally displaced go back home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, what?  Really?  All the Palestinian refugees?  Or both the Palestinian refugees and the Jewish ones?  Or all the Palestinian refugees and all their descendants?  Or all the Palestinians refugees and their descendants AND all the Jewish refugees and their descendants?  Where's home (specifically -- the exact house, the general neighborhood, somewhere in the same city, or anywhere in the territory)?
> 
> And you are claiming that nothing else matters?  That the be all and end all of the "occupation" is only about those displaced?
Click to expand...

No but that needs to take place first. Actually the BDS call is important. After that they need to hammer out whether it would be best to go with one state or two states. They both have good and bad points.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread to stay on topic: What is peace worth ?
> 
> That Israel is a legitimate state is a western concept based on a lifetime of say so. The Palestinians and others in the region call Israel 1948 occupied Palestine. It is commonly called 48 land or just 48.
> 
> I have studied many versions of history and many official documents and I have seen nothing saying that they are incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So answer the question -- what does Israel have to do to rectify the situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> End the occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as you stated the "occupation" includes ALL of the land -- so what would you consider the end of the occupation to look like?  Be specific.  How will you know the occupation has ended?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When all of the refugees and internally displaced go back home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, what?  Really?  All the Palestinian refugees?  Or both the Palestinian refugees and the Jewish ones?  Or all the Palestinian refugees and all their descendants?  Or all the Palestinians refugees and their descendants AND all the Jewish refugees and their descendants?  Where's home (specifically -- the exact house, the general neighborhood, somewhere in the same city, or anywhere in the territory)?
> 
> And you are claiming that nothing else matters?  That the be all and end all of the "occupation" is only about those displaced?
Click to expand...


You certainly like complicating things where no complexity actually exists; it's called "over-thinking a problem". You asked the question, "How will you know the occupation has ended?" and you were answered, " When all of the refugees and internally displaced go back home." Everything else is part of the process to get to that end result. See, not so difficult, is it?


----------



## Shusha

So, again, are we talking ALL of the refugees?  Or just the Palestinian ones?  And where is "home"?  Is it enough to bring them back to the territory and get them out of camps?  Or are you insisting that they return to Israel (which will bring an end to Israel and will be a much harder sell)?  

These questions make a huge difference for the Israeli side.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> So, again, are we talking ALL of the refugees?  Or just the Palestinian ones?  And where is "home"?  Is it enough to bring them back to the territory and get them out of camps?  Or are you insisting that they return to Israel (which will bring an end to Israel and will be a much harder sell)?
> 
> These questions make a huge difference for the Israeli side.


You did not address all of the points I made in my original post.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, are we talking ALL of the refugees?  Or just the Palestinian ones?  And where is "home"?  Is it enough to bring them back to the territory and get them out of camps?  Or are you insisting that they return to Israel (which will bring an end to Israel and will be a much harder sell)?
> 
> These questions make a huge difference for the Israeli side.
> 
> 
> 
> You did not address all of the points I made in my original post.
Click to expand...


Which one?  #321?

Israel is a State by any measure you want to throw at it.  Your turn.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, are we talking ALL of the refugees?  Or just the Palestinian ones?  And where is "home"?  Is it enough to bring them back to the territory and get them out of camps?  Or are you insisting that they return to Israel (which will bring an end to Israel and will be a much harder sell)?
> 
> These questions make a huge difference for the Israeli side.
> 
> 
> 
> You did not address all of the points I made in my original post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which one?  #321?
> 
> Israel is a State by any measure you want to throw at it.  Your turn.
Click to expand...

Nice say so. Any proof?


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> So, again, are we talking ALL of the refugees?  Or just the Palestinian ones?  And where is "home"?  Is it enough to bring them back to the territory and get them out of camps?  Or are you insisting that they return to Israel (which will bring an end to Israel and will be a much harder sell)?
> 
> These questions make a huge difference for the Israeli side.



No they don't, these are just tactics to introduce unnecessary complexity where none exists and thereby derail any serious negotiations by arguing over minuitae; rather like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without first establishing that angels CAN dance on the head of a pin. Establish the principle, the rest will follow.


----------



## Boston1

Shusha said:


> So, again, are we talking ALL of the refugees?  Or just the Palestinian ones?  And where is "home"?  Is it enough to bring them back to the territory and get them out of camps?  Or are you insisting that they return to Israel (which will bring an end to Israel and will be a much harder sell)?
> 
> These questions make a huge difference for the Israeli side.



I think the question of refugees might deserve its own thread. The issue is actually quite complex.


----------



## Challenger

Boston1 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, are we talking ALL of the refugees?  Or just the Palestinian ones?  And where is "home"?  Is it enough to bring them back to the territory and get them out of camps?  Or are you insisting that they return to Israel (which will bring an end to Israel and will be a much harder sell)?
> 
> These questions make a huge difference for the Israeli side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the question of refugees might deserve its own thread. The issue is actually quite complex.
Click to expand...


No it is not. Zionists always introduce complexity to stall or derail any serious discussion or negotiation. This is why the Zionists have spun out peace negotiations for the last 15 years and why Olso has ultimately failed.


----------



## Boston1

I went ahead and unilaterally ;--) started a new thread anyway. This one is on the creation of Israel. The new one is on the complexities of the refugee issues. While I found the read on this thread interesting. I didn't think the refugee issue belonged here


----------



## Shusha

Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.  It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.  It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.



On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything


Why does the pro-Israeli side always jump to that extreme?  It's not all, or nothing.  You either blame Israel for everything, or you don't blame them at all.  That's a pretty irrational position; it's also a popular mantra.

Israel is blamed, for the things Israel is responsible for.




Shusha said:


> but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.


I gave you a step by step plan:

comply with international law
end the occupation and blockade
honor human rights
stop hijacking ships in international waters
stop thinking you're all that (and a bucket of chicken)
be fair to the Palestinian's
end administrative detention
decide whether you want democracy, or a Jewish State (can't have both)



Shusha said:


> It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.


Oh, that's right.  The only reason the world is outraged that Israel wants to lock up rock throwers for 20 years, is because it doesn't like Israel?  The world really thinks its okay to lock up rock throwers for 20 years and is just using this as a wedge issue because it doesn't like Israel.  It has nothing to do with any Israeli actions.

How convenient!

If the world knew then, what it knows now, Israel would not be a country.

Zionists definitely don't deserve one!


----------



## Billo_Really

Challenger said:


> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.


The Israeli right has no intention of seeking a lasting peace.  That was obvious when they attacked Gaza after the Unity government was formed.  With Hamas transitioning from a militant group, to a political one, Israel would have to seriously negotiate a peace agreement.  And they have no intention of doing that.


----------



## Boston1

You can always see that moment in the conversation when the revisionists hit restart and begin their nonsense all over again as if no conversation had ever taken place. 

Its the exact same tactic climate deniers use

Wow


----------



## Challenger

Boston1 said:


> You can always see that moment in the conversation when the revisionists hit restart and begin their nonsense all over again as if no conversation had ever taken place.
> 
> Its the exact same tactic climate deniers use
> 
> Wow



Correct. Revisionist Zionists Revisionist Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boston1

Which goes to prove my point about WIKI not being your best source as just about any fool can write trash like that and they will accept it. 

The revisionists are the Arab Muslim colonists who try and claim first nations status or insist on the destruction of Israel and then cry foul when Israel thwarts their hatred and bigotry again and again


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.  It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.
Click to expand...


Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.  

And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Israel is blamed, for the things Israel is responsible for.



The last handful of posts by the anti-Israel crowd have insisted that Israel is responsible for everything.   Do you agree with that position, or do you think the Palestinian (people, leadership or government) has some responsibility?




Billo_Really said:


> I gave you a step by step plan:
> 
> comply with international law
> end the occupation and blockade
> honor human rights
> stop hijacking ships in international waters
> stop thinking you're all that (and a bucket of chicken)
> be fair to the Palestinian's
> end administrative detention
> decide whether you want democracy, or a Jewish State (can't have both)


Finally!  Someone answers.  Now, if I ask for clarification and detail, will you provide?  For example, Tinmore says that ALL of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine except Jordan is occupied.  By what measure will we know that the occupation has ended?   I'm looking for specifics here, actual, measurable, concrete plans which will end the conflict.



Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  The only reason the world is outraged that Israel wants to lock up rock throwers for 20 years, is because it doesn't like Israel?  The world really thinks its okay to lock up rock throwers for 20 years and is just using this as a wedge issue because it doesn't like Israel.  It has nothing to do with any Israeli actions.
> 
> How convenient!
> 
> If the world knew then, what it knows now, Israel would not be a country.
> 
> Zionists definitely don't deserve one!
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving my point about Israel bashing.  Rather than look at solving the problem, you took the opportunity to bash Israel  on an entirely off-topic point by introducing lies and exaggerations and then making broad, disparaging remarks, including a general one about "Zionists" which is obviously a form of anti-semitism.

For the record, most sentences for rock-throwing range from a few months to two years.  The only way a twenty year sentence can be put in place is if it is proven in court that the rock throwing intended serious bodily harm.  And, personally, I think that intending serious bodily harm to an innocent person deserves a serious sentence, yes, even including up to 20 years.  There really isn't any difference between a rock and a knife and a car and a gun when it comes to intent to harm.  Or are you telling me that attacking someone with a knife with intent to kill them should not receive a harsh sentence up to 20 years?


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Thank you for proving my point about Israel bashing.  Rather than look at solving the problem, you took the opportunity to bash Israel  on an entirely off-topic point by introducing lies and exaggerations and then making broad, disparaging remarks, including a general one about "Zionists" which is obviously a form of anti-semitism.
> 
> For the record, most sentences for rock-throwing range from a few months to two years.  The only way a twenty year sentence can be put in place is if it is proven in court that the rock throwing intended serious bodily harm.  And, personally, I think that intending serious bodily harm to an innocent person deserves a serious sentence, yes, even including up to 20 years.  There really isn't any difference between a rock and a knife and a car and a gun when it comes to intent to harm.  Or are you telling me that attacking someone with a knife with intent to kill them should not receive a harsh sentence up to 20 years?


You're just saying this, because you hate the Lakers.

You're a Kobe hater.  That's the only reason you said what you said.

See how stupid that argument is?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.  It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.
> 
> And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.
Click to expand...

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point about Israel bashing.  Rather than look at solving the problem, you took the opportunity to bash Israel  on an entirely off-topic point by introducing lies and exaggerations and then making broad, disparaging remarks, including a general one about "Zionists" which is obviously a form of anti-semitism.
> 
> For the record, most sentences for rock-throwing range from a few months to two years.  The only way a twenty year sentence can be put in place is if it is proven in court that the rock throwing intended serious bodily harm.  And, personally, I think that intending serious bodily harm to an innocent person deserves a serious sentence, yes, even including up to 20 years.  There really isn't any difference between a rock and a knife and a car and a gun when it comes to intent to harm.  Or are you telling me that attacking someone with a knife with intent to kill them should not receive a harsh sentence up to 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> You're just saying this, because you hate the Lakers.
> 
> You're a Kobe hater.  That's the only reason you said what you said.
> 
> See how stupid that argument is?
Click to expand...


Kobe is a vile rapist.  What is your point?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration



So you want the entire territory turned over to an Arab Muslim government?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want the entire territory turned over to an Arab Muslim government?
Click to expand...

That is what the UN recommends based on a web of international law.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want the entire territory turned over to an Arab Muslim government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what the UN recommends based on a web of international law.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly think this is in any way a viable solution to the conflict?  Do you think the conflict should continue until this happens?


----------



## Boston1

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.  It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.
> 
> And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
Click to expand...


Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote


Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
End Quote

Article 4 

Quote


B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote


Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote


Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.  It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.
> 
> And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your funny
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.
> 
> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)
> 
> IV geneva convention
> Quote
> 
> Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> End Quote
> 
> IIV Geneva convention
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
> End Quote
> 
> Article 4
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
> (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
> End quote
> 
> Art 4 (6) B
> 
> Quote
> 
> (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 10
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 19
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
> Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
> End quote.
> 
> So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.
> 
> Case closed
> 
> Kick the bums out.
Click to expand...

How is all that applicable to this conflict?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.  It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.
> 
> And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your funny
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.
> 
> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)
> 
> IV geneva convention
> Quote
> 
> Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> End Quote
> 
> IIV Geneva convention
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
> End Quote
> 
> Article 4
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
> (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
> End quote
> 
> Art 4 (6) B
> 
> Quote
> 
> (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 10
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 19
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
> Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
> End quote.
> 
> So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.
> 
> Case closed
> 
> Kick the bums out.
Click to expand...

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​
It does reference several international laws that are binding.


----------



## Boston1

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.  It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.
> 
> And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your funny
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.
> 
> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)
> 
> IV geneva convention
> Quote
> 
> Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> End Quote
> 
> IIV Geneva convention
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
> End Quote
> 
> Article 4
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
> (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
> End quote
> 
> Art 4 (6) B
> 
> Quote
> 
> (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 10
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 19
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
> Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
> End quote.
> 
> So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.
> 
> Case closed
> 
> Kick the bums out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​
> It does reference several international laws that are binding.
Click to expand...



I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law. 

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you. 

Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since. 

See 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.
> 
> And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your funny
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.
> 
> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)
> 
> IV geneva convention
> Quote
> 
> Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> End Quote
> 
> IIV Geneva convention
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
> End Quote
> 
> Article 4
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
> (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
> End quote
> 
> Art 4 (6) B
> 
> Quote
> 
> (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 10
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 19
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
> Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
> End quote.
> 
> So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.
> 
> Case closed
> 
> Kick the bums out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​
> It does reference several international laws that are binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjx-YvM37HKAhVP5mMKHcaGBEcQFggcMAA&url=http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVHK-TRv1gB9Jns-L_EF78bfH-ww&sig2=Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.
> 
> Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjzs--Z4bHKAhUEMGMKHaS9CjEQFggcMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&usg=AFQjCNHKkxKvnSNkwDjiO5EKjcw-ckRZvQ&sig2=gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
Click to expand...

Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.​
So, what nations were they?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.
> 
> And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your funny
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.
> 
> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)
> 
> IV geneva convention
> Quote
> 
> Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> End Quote
> 
> IIV Geneva convention
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
> End Quote
> 
> Article 4
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
> (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
> End quote
> 
> Art 4 (6) B
> 
> Quote
> 
> (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 10
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 19
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
> Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
> End quote.
> 
> So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.
> 
> Case closed
> 
> Kick the bums out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​
> It does reference several international laws that are binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjx-YvM37HKAhVP5mMKHcaGBEcQFggcMAA&url=http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVHK-TRv1gB9Jns-L_EF78bfH-ww&sig2=Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.
> 
> Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjzs--Z4bHKAhUEMGMKHaS9CjEQFggcMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&usg=AFQjCNHKkxKvnSNkwDjiO5EKjcw-ckRZvQ&sig2=gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
Click to expand...

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.​
Oh really? It is illegal to acquire territory by war.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, *and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*​

You don't see a connection there?


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Thank you for proving my point about Israel bashing.  Rather than look at solving the problem, you took the opportunity to bash Israel  on an entirely off-topic point by introducing lies and exaggerations and then making broad, disparaging remarks, including a general one about "Zionists" which is obviously a form of anti-semitism.


Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism, so how can it possibly be anti-Semitic?

As for Israel bashing, why would I lie?  Why would I go to all the trouble of exaggerating something about a country I could care less about?




Shusha said:


> For the record, most sentences for rock-throwing range from a few months to two years.  The only way a twenty year sentence can be put in place is if it is proven in court that the rock throwing intended serious bodily harm.  And, personally, I think that intending serious bodily harm to an innocent person deserves a serious sentence, yes, even including up to 20 years.


Your on their land, humiliating their parents, shooting them with rubber bullets, pounding them in the face, not stopping settler violence, but get aggravated when they throw a rock?




Shusha said:


> There really isn't any difference between a rock and a knife...


Yes there is.  The IDF doesn't place rocks next to the body of a Palestinian they just shot in cold blood.




Shusha said:


> and a car and a gun when it comes to intent to harm.  Or are you telling me that attacking someone with a knife with intent to kill them should not receive a harsh sentence up to 20 years?


 I'm saying what you do to them, is far worse than what they do to you.




Shusha said:


> Kobe is a vile rapist.  What is your point?


What do you.......live in Denver?


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism, so how can it possibly be anti-Semitic?



This last post is mostly off topic, so I will leave it alone and try to address it on other threads.  But I feel compelled to address your quote which was, if memory serves, "Zionists do not deserve a country".  

So here is the problem with that.  Zionism is the idea that the Jewish people, like every other people in the world, have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.  It is the exact same concept as Tibetans have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.  And Catalans have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.  And Kurds have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.  And, if you push it far enough, and I do, that Palestinians have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.

So when one says "Zionists" do not deserve a country they are saying, in fact, that the Jewish people do not deserve a country. 

And there is no reason in the world for the Jewish people to be the only ones who do not have that right other than anti-semitism.  

On another note, Zionism has everything to do with Judaism.  It is an integral point of faith.  The very foundation of the religious perspective.  Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea that religious beliefs should play any role in politics or in the rights of peoples.  But to say that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism is not true.


----------



## Boston1

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel.  And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that.  I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?"   Its such a simple thing.  What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians?  And all I'm getting is the run around.
> 
> And I have put forward a step by step plan.  I even started an entire thread about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your funny
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.
> 
> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)
> 
> IV geneva convention
> Quote
> 
> Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> End Quote
> 
> IIV Geneva convention
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
> End Quote
> 
> Article 4
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
> (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
> End quote
> 
> Art 4 (6) B
> 
> Quote
> 
> (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 10
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 19
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
> Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
> End quote.
> 
> So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.
> 
> Case closed
> 
> Kick the bums out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​
> It does reference several international laws that are binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjx-YvM37HKAhVP5mMKHcaGBEcQFggcMAA&url=http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVHK-TRv1gB9Jns-L_EF78bfH-ww&sig2=Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.
> 
> Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjzs--Z4bHKAhUEMGMKHaS9CjEQFggcMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&usg=AFQjCNHKkxKvnSNkwDjiO5EKjcw-ckRZvQ&sig2=gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.​
> Oh really? It is illegal to acquire territory by war.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, *and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*​
> 
> You don't see a connection there?
Click to expand...


No absolutely none.

Firstly you have not quoted international law, you have reiterated a suggestion made by the UN in one of its many non binding general assembly resolutions

Second, palestine has never been a nation, ergo there can be no national territory as defined within the UN suggestion.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
> 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
> 
> The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your funny
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.
> 
> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)
> 
> IV geneva convention
> Quote
> 
> Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> End Quote
> 
> IIV Geneva convention
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
> End Quote
> 
> Article 4
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
> (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
> End quote
> 
> Art 4 (6) B
> 
> Quote
> 
> (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 10
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Article 19
> 
> Quote
> 
> Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
> Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.
> End quote.
> 
> So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.
> 
> Case closed
> 
> Kick the bums out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​
> It does reference several international laws that are binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjx-YvM37HKAhVP5mMKHcaGBEcQFggcMAA&url=http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVHK-TRv1gB9Jns-L_EF78bfH-ww&sig2=Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.
> 
> Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjzs--Z4bHKAhUEMGMKHaS9CjEQFggcMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&usg=AFQjCNHKkxKvnSNkwDjiO5EKjcw-ckRZvQ&sig2=gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.​
> Oh really? It is illegal to acquire territory by war.
> 
> 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, *and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.*​
> 
> You don't see a connection there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No absolutely none.
> 
> Firstly you have not quoted international law, you have reiterated a suggestion made by the UN in one of its many non binding general assembly resolutions
> 
> Second, palestine has never been a nation, ergo there can be no national territory as defined within the UN suggestion.
Click to expand...

Can you prove what you said?


----------



## Boston1

Already have in multiple threads 

But rather than quote a  bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited. 

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> This last post is mostly off topic, so I will leave it alone and try to address it on other threads.  But I feel compelled to address your quote which was, if memory serves, "Zionists do not deserve a country".
> 
> So here is the problem with that.  Zionism is the idea that the Jewish people, like every other people in the world, have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.  It is the exact same concept as Tibetans have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.  And Catalans have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.  And Kurds have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.  And, if you push it far enough, and I do, that Palestinians have a right to self-determination on their ancestral homelands.
> 
> So when one says "Zionists" do not deserve a country they are saying, in fact, that the Jewish people do not deserve a country.
> 
> And there is no reason in the world for the Jewish people to be the only ones who do not have that right other than anti-semitism.
> 
> On another note, Zionism has everything to do with Judaism.  It is an integral point of faith.  The very foundation of the religious perspective.  Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea that religious beliefs should play any role in politics or in the rights of peoples.  But to say that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism is not true.


Zionism is a political movement; Judaism is a religion.  How much clearer can that be?  Why do you keep trying to push a religious ideology into a political problem? 

If Zionism was the very foundation of the religious perspective, it wouldn't be violating the Three Oaths. But I will concede Zionism has one thing to do with Judaism; it uses Judaism, like a cheap whore uses a condom.  Much like the neocons in this country used Christianity.

And the reasons Zionists don't deserve a country, is because of what they've done with it over the last 70 years.

you thumb your nose at international law
you don't respect human rights
you treat the Pals like the Nazis treated the Jews
you attack humanitarian aid vessels in international waters
you want to be known as the "Jewish State", but claim that's not apartheid
you constantly blame others for the shit things you do
and last but not least, Zionists are "assholes".  Major fucking assholes.
It's easy to see that from the posts of all the people defending them.

*Roudy* = asshole
*Hollie* = bitch asshole
*Independent* = nice asshole
*Kondor3* = immature asshole (and US traitor)
*Phoeny* = fucked in the head, 15 year old asshole (by the way, where is he?)
*Boston1* = loves to hear himself talk asshole
*Rhodes_Scolar* = major asshole that makes me look like Mother Theresa
You and *RoccoR* are anomalies.  You're not assholes, but sometimes you cheerlead the ones who are.


----------



## Billo_Really

Boston1 said:


> Already have in multiple threads
> 
> But rather than quote a  bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.


*Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention* is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> Already have in multiple threads
> 
> But rather than quote a  bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.


*Decisions of international and national tribunals*

The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans.* A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
*State succession*

A legal analysis by the International Court of Justice noted that the Covenant of the League of Nations had provisionally recognized the communities of Palestine as independent nations. The mandate simply marked a transitory period, with the aim and object of leading the mandated territory to become an independent self-governing State.[122] Judge Higgins explained that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State."[123]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boston1

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have in multiple threads
> 
> But rather than quote a  bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention* is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.
Click to expand...


Israel isn't occupying the area, the mandate area west of the Jordan was intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and thats exactly what Israel is doing with it.








Oh and as for the Wiki Quote. This again is why Wiki should be looked upon with a healthy dose of caution. The interpretation of league of nation council actions in modern international law is obviously flawed when the ICC does not recognize one palestinian state let alone a whole bunch of small ones.

See
Palestine and the ICC — Some Legal Questions | Just Security

So even if a non binding entity like the UN accepts palestine as an observer state, Their own binding entity does not. Leaves the whole thing in limbo.

The ICC on the other hand may or may not be a binding entity due to the US objection but either way Oslo II is still in effect which precludes the ICC involvement through a legal agreement. So its actually illegal for the Arab Muslim colonists to have declared themselves a state since they already agreed that all such declarations shall be the result of negotiations.

See also
ICC won't probe Gaza war because Palestine 'not a state'


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have in multiple threads
> 
> But rather than quote a  bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention* is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel isn't occupying the area, the mandate area west of the Jordan was intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and thats exactly what Israel is doing with it.
Click to expand...

Israel isn't what the Jewish National Home was supposed to be.


----------



## Boston1

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have in multiple threads
> 
> But rather than quote a  bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention* is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel isn't occupying the area, the mandate area west of the Jordan was intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and thats exactly what Israel is doing with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel isn't what the Jewish National Home was supposed to be.
Click to expand...


More accurately palestine isn't what the Jewish national home was supposed to be. 

Specifically Israel is entittled to set up camp anywhere west of the Jordan river and the Arab Muslim colonists were given everything east. The two state solution. It really doesn't matter what they are named.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already have in multiple threads
> 
> But rather than quote a  bunch of stuff thats already been posted all I need do is suggest the readers actually read the link YOU provided so they can all see no international law was quoted or referenced. Oh the term "rights" was thrown around a lot, but no specific international law that confers those rights was cited.
> 
> See
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> As for that last statement you want me to prove I'd suggest you prove palestine is a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention* is an International Law and it states an occupying power cannot transfer a part of its population into the area being occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel isn't occupying the area, the mandate area west of the Jordan was intended for the creation of a Jewish national homeland and thats exactly what Israel is doing with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel isn't what the Jewish National Home was supposed to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately palestine isn't what the Jewish national home was supposed to be.
> 
> Specifically Israel is entittled to set up camp anywhere west of the Jordan river and the Arab Muslim colonists were given everything east. The two state solution. It really doesn't matter what they are named.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Boston1

It sounds like you are conceding the issue of palestine NOT being a state as per ICC ruling and would now like to move on to discuss Israel's specific permission to create a national Jewish homeland. 

Again it looks like we are making progress ;--) 

see

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ib3CSgGxVK4j5dAxnobQxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> It sounds like you are conceding the issue of palestine NOT being a state as per ICC ruling and would now like to move on to discuss Israel's specific permission to create a national Jewish homeland.
> 
> Again it looks like we are making progress ;--)
> 
> see
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi4942h0LPKAhWFKGMKHXj0Av0QFggcMAA&url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp&usg=AFQjCNEtqWnoOcMsGUcgKmkZOjrTAGt8uQ&sig2=ib3CSgGxVK4j5dAxnobQxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc


What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?


----------



## Boston1

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are conceding the issue of palestine NOT being a state as per ICC ruling and would now like to move on to discuss Israel's specific permission to create a national Jewish homeland.
> 
> Again it looks like we are making progress ;--)
> 
> see
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi4942h0LPKAhWFKGMKHXj0Av0QFggcMAA&url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp&usg=AFQjCNEtqWnoOcMsGUcgKmkZOjrTAGt8uQ&sig2=ib3CSgGxVK4j5dAxnobQxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> 
> 
> What does article 7 say?
> 
> How many times is Palestine called a country?
Click to expand...


Not once

 Quote 
*ART. 7.*

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

End Quote


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are conceding the issue of palestine NOT being a state as per ICC ruling and would now like to move on to discuss Israel's specific permission to create a national Jewish homeland.
> 
> Again it looks like we are making progress ;--)
> 
> see
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi4942h0LPKAhWFKGMKHXj0Av0QFggcMAA&url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp&usg=AFQjCNEtqWnoOcMsGUcgKmkZOjrTAGt8uQ&sig2=ib3CSgGxVK4j5dAxnobQxw&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc
> 
> 
> 
> What does article 7 say?
> 
> How many times is Palestine called a country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not once
> 
> Quote
> *ART. 7.*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> End Quote
Click to expand...

Actually it was 10 times.

If you look at everything from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate you will see that Israel is the aberration not what was planned.


----------



## Boston1

I'm sorry if you are not able to follow the conversation, maybe someone on your end can give you a hand 

Your post #373

Quote 
What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?
End Quote 

and I responded 

in post 374

Not once

Quote 
*ART. 7.*

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

End Quote

Now you claiming article 10 uses the term "state" 13 times 

Palestine was never a state, even the ICC makes it clear that there is no such thing as a state of palestine


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Zionism is a political movement; Judaism is a religion.  How much clearer can that be?  Why do you keep trying to push a religious ideology into a political problem?
> 
> If Zionism was the very foundation of the religious perspective, it wouldn't be violating the Three Oaths. But I will concede Zionism has one thing to do with Judaism; it uses Judaism, like a cheap whore uses a condom.  Much like the neocons in this country used Christianity.
> 
> And the reasons Zionists don't deserve a country, is because of what they've done with it over the last 70 years.
> 
> you thumb your nose at international law
> you don't respect human rights
> you treat the Pals like the Nazis treated the Jews
> you attack humanitarian aid vessels in international waters
> you want to be known as the "Jewish State", but claim that's not apartheid
> you constantly blame others for the shit things you do
> and last but not least, Zionists are "assholes".  Major fucking assholes.
> It's easy to see that from the posts of all the people defending them.
> 
> *Roudy* = asshole
> *Hollie* = bitch asshole
> *Independent* = nice asshole
> *Kondor3* = immature asshole (and US traitor)
> *Phoeny* = fucked in the head, 15 year old asshole (by the way, where is he?)
> *Boston1* = loves to hear himself talk asshole
> *Rhodes_Scolar* = major asshole that makes me look like Mother Theresa
> You and *RoccoR* are anomalies.  You're not assholes, but sometimes you cheerlead the ones who are.



Billo, my friend, I have decided I am officially adopting you as my nemesis here.  I have long been of the fanciful notion that each of us has a particular poster who rattles our chains and is just enough like us to make it interesting.  On my previous forum, now shut down , it was a lovely British man who portrayed himself in his avatar as both younger and better-looking than he was and disguised his anti-semitism with a lace tablecloth set out with British tea on fine china.  The biscuits looked pretty while tasting of poison.  

You have a bit of spunk to you, just enough legal understanding to follow the crowd without really knowing what you are talking about, and the guts to say what you are really thinking, even if its crude and obnoxious and nothing more than an appeal to emotion to demonize Israel.  Ultimately, though, you discuss the moral aspects of the conflict and I think you might actually be focused on solving the problem, instead of tossing around legal clauses like stones.  You are like a spoonful of Buckley's topped with a bit of honey.  Smells fine, until you swallow it. 

That said, here are the reasons why the Palestinians do not deserve a country:

1.  They twist international law to say whatever they want it to say.
2.  They don't believe human rights applies to the apes and pigs, um, I mean, Jews.
3.  They use their own children as propaganda tools and shields and soldiers.
4.  They call knives and steel pipes "humanitarian aide".
5.  They keep refusing to make a State or take one that is given to them on silver fucking platter.
6.  They can't take responsibility for any part of the conflict and consider themselves helpless, blameless, victims.  Even while firing rockets, building tunnels and stabbing people. 
7.  They lie about Israel to get false sympathy. 
8.  They celebrate their own culture of death. 


(For fun, I could also do one on why Americans don't deserve a country.  I just have to figure out where to put it.)


----------



## P F Tinmore

Boston1 said:


> I'm sorry if you are not able to follow the conversation, maybe someone on your end can give you a hand
> 
> Your post #373
> 
> Quote
> What does article 7 say?
> 
> How many times is Palestine called a country?
> End Quote
> 
> and I responded
> 
> in post 374
> 
> Not once
> 
> Quote
> *ART. 7.*
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> Now you claiming article 10 uses the term "state" 13 times
> 
> Palestine was never a state, even the ICC makes it clear that there is no such thing as a state of palestine


Now you claiming article 10 uses the term "state" 13 times​
Uhhh, no.

*United States considered that Palestine was a state In 1932*

The proposition that Palestine is a state may seem strange to some. It was not so strange to a U.S. district judge who had to decide the issue in a 1953 case." A man named Kletter was born in Palestine in 1911, when Palestine was under the control of the Ottoman Turks. As a boy, Kletter accompanied his mother immigrating to the United States, where she was naturalized in 1928, thereby conferring U.S. nationality not only on herself but also on Kletter, then age 17. A few years later Kletter went back to Palestine, where he was naturalized in 1935. But then he returned to the United State  and wanted privileges that would come with U.S. nationality. Kletter claimed that he was still a U.S. national. He argued that Palestine was not a state, and therefore that his 1935 naturalization there was invalid. The U.S. district court disagreed. It said that Kletter's naturalization in Palestine was valid, thus he was no longer a U.S. national: "[N]aturalization in any foreign state...constitutes expatriation. The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit."* In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state:* "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce." *The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.* 

In 1932, Britain had just enacted comprehensive tariffs on incoming goods but wanted to exempt goods from Palestine. Britain did not want to damage the exports of Palestine, as Palestine was under British administration. But Britain had a problem; it had treaties with a number of states, including the United States, that provided that such states were entitled to the lowest tariff rates Britain charged to any other state. This was the most favored nation provision to which the court referred. If Britain allowed goods from Palestine duty-free, the United States, and indeed a number of other states, including France and Italy, might claim a similar exemption. The issue turned on whether Palestine was a state.

To test the waters, Britain made discreet diplomatic inquiries to ask whether, if Britain were to exempt Palestine, the United States would claim a similar exemption on the basis that Palestine was a state. The United States replied emphatically that it would. The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. *The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.*

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil​


----------



## Boston1

I'm sorry you are having trouble following the conversation. Let me remind you of your post 

#373

Quote 
What does article 7 say?

How many times is Palestine called a country?
End Quote 

and I responded 

in post 374

Not once

Quote 
*ART. 7.*

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

End Quote

Now you claiming article 10 uses the term "state" 13 times 

Maybe you can have someone help you reread all these last and help you catch up. 

Hope all is well.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Billo, my friend, I have decided I am officially adopting you as my nemesis here.  I have long been of the fanciful notion that each of us has a particular poster who rattles our chains and is just enough like us to make it interesting.  On my previous forum, now shut down , it was a lovely British man who portrayed himself in his avatar as both younger and better-looking than he was and disguised his anti-semitism with a lace tablecloth set out with British tea on fine china.  The biscuits looked pretty while tasting of poison.


I could care less about Jews, Judaism, Muslims or Islam.  I'm a white, Irish Catholic.  This conflict doesn't affect my daily life in any way.  And because of that, I'm probably the most objective voice you will hear on this issue.




Shusha said:


> You have a bit of spunk to you, just enough legal understanding to follow the crowd without really knowing what you are talking about, and the guts to say what you are really thinking, even if its crude and obnoxious and nothing more than an appeal to emotion to demonize Israel.  Ultimately, though, you discuss the moral aspects of the conflict and I think you might actually be focused on solving the problem, instead of tossing around legal clauses like stones.  You are like a spoonful of Buckley's topped with a bit of honey.  Smells fine, until you swallow it.


My use of profanity is just the way I talk, nothing more.  And you're right, I'm going to say exactly what's on my mind.  I'm also one of the few posters that is willing to admit I'm wrong, when  presented with a good enough argument.




Shusha said:


> That said, here are the reasons why the Palestinians do not deserve a country:
> 
> 1.  They twist international law to say whatever they want it to say.
> 2.  They don't believe human rights applies to the apes and pigs, um, I mean, Jews.
> 3.  They use their own children as propaganda tools and shields and soldiers.
> 4.  They call knives and steel pipes "humanitarian aide".
> 5.  They keep refusing to make a State or take one that is given to them on silver fucking platter.
> 6.  They can't take responsibility for any part of the conflict and consider themselves helpless, blameless, victims.  Even while firing rockets, building tunnels and stabbing people.
> 7.  They lie about Israel to get false sympathy.
> 8.  They celebrate their own culture of death.
> 
> 
> (For fun, I could also do one on why Americans don't deserve a country.  I just have to figure out where to put it.)


I completely support the Israeli left; but I despise the Israeli right.  Do you know why I despise the Israeli right?  It's because they remind me of neocons, whom I absolutely loathe.

The bottom line with Israel is, it doesn't matter whether Palestine was a state or not, nothing changes the fact that there was an indigenous population of Arabs (over a million), to just 300,000 Jews, at the time Zionists declared Israel to be a state.  That indigenous population of Arabs have rights that you cannot take away and that they cannot give up.

The Balfour Declaration even had the caveat that stated Zionists could create the state of Israel, as long as it didn't prejudice the indigenous, non-Jewish population.  But that's exactly what Zionists did.

Here's a thought, why don't you give all of Palestine to the Palestinian's and all the Israeli's can move to the US.  We'll give you Wisconsin.  The Mormons already got dibs on Utah.


----------



## Boston1

You are hallucinating if you think the Arabs were an indigenous people outside the Arabian peninsula.

Ever heard of a little ditty called the Arab conquest ? Right around say the 7th to 9th centuries ?

Say 3500 years AFTER the appearance of the proto Israeli peoples in the Canaan Valley area.


----------



## Challenger

Boston1 said:


> UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.



Oh good grief, GA resolutions in themselves are not binding on States, true, but they ARE effectively binding if they restate legal principles found in the UN Charter (which IS binding on all members) Customary International Law, Treaties, or ICJ Judicial decisions and can be used as a reference to those legal principles. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (GA 217) is one example, so is the Declaration on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (GA2263) and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (GA1514). These three GA declarations have even been used by U.S. legal system since the late1970's as a source of legal principles that can be applied by the courts to determine matters of International law. GA resolutions can no longer be just dismissed with a blanket "they're non-binding".


----------



## Challenger

Boston1 said:


> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)



....really? Check in with your handlers, Zionist Israel considers the Geneva Conventions don't apply in the Occupied territories.  Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention


----------



## Challenger

Boston1 said:


> You are hallucinating if you think the Arabs were an indigenous people outside the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> Ever heard of a little ditty called the Arab conquest ? Right around say the 7th to 9th centuries ?
> 
> Say 3500 years AFTER the appearance of the proto Israeli peoples in the Canaan Valley area.



You are really confused aren't you? The Arab "conquerors" did not displace the indigenous people, nor did they convert them by force; they needed as wide a tax base as possible. The Roman elites relocated back to the Empire whose new borders now ran along the Taurus mountains. The natives were given local autonomy so long as they provided the required tribute. It took over 100 years for the native indigenous population of Palestine to convert to Islam and adopt Arabic as the lingua franca and Arabic culture. There is no historical evidence for any mass migration or mass displacement of peoples during the 7th to 9th centuries, in the region, so the people indigenous to Palestine in the 7th century are still the indigenous people of Palestine today, with the exception of course, of the mass influx of European Zionist colonists in the 20th century.

"Canaan valley"? Where's that? The only major valley in the area is the Jordan valley


----------



## Challenger

Billo_Really said:


> ...Here's a thought, why don't you give all of Palestine to the Palestinian's and all the Israeli's can move to the US.  We'll give you Wisconsin.  The Mormons already got dibs on Utah.



Good Idea, or Montana; that's pretty empty. If Utah can cope with 15 million Mormons, Montana or Wisconsin should be able to absorb 5 million new "American citizens". They can even take their Wall with them, and wail at it there (although the noise might annoy the neighbours )


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....really? Check in with your handlers, Zionist Israel considers the Geneva Conventions don't apply in the Occupied territories.  Why Israel Is Not Violating Fourth Geneva Convention
Click to expand...







 WRONG  what Israel says is the part of the Geneva convention applying to international conflicts does not apply once the self appointed rulers gave up their claims to the land under occupation. The P.A did not exist in 1967 when Israel occupied the land so the Geneva conventions don't apply


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are hallucinating if you think the Arabs were an indigenous people outside the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> Ever heard of a little ditty called the Arab conquest ? Right around say the 7th to 9th centuries ?
> 
> Say 3500 years AFTER the appearance of the proto Israeli peoples in the Canaan Valley area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really confused aren't you? The Arab "conquerors" did not displace the indigenous people, nor did they convert them by force; they needed as wide a tax base as possible. The Roman elites relocated back to the Empire whose new borders now ran along the Taurus mountains. The natives were given local autonomy so long as they provided the required tribute. It took over 100 years for the native indigenous population of Palestine to convert to Islam and adopt Arabic as the lingua franca and Arabic culture. There is no historical evidence for any mass migration or mass displacement of peoples during the 7th to 9th centuries, in the region, so the people indigenous to Palestine in the 7th century are still the indigenous people of Palestine today, with the exception of course, of the mass influx of European Zionist colonists in the 20th century.
> 
> "Canaan valley"? Where's that? The only major valley in the area is the Jordan valley
Click to expand...







 It took a lot longer than 100 years as Rome left in the late 4C and islam was not invented in mecca until the mid 7C. It then took a few more hundred years before the lands outside of the Arabian peninsular where converted by force of arms to islam.
 It was not always called the river Jordan you know


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Here's a thought, why don't you give all of Palestine to the Palestinian's and all the Israeli's can move to the US.  We'll give you Wisconsin.  The Mormons already got dibs on Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Idea, or Montana; that's pretty empty. If Utah can cope with 15 million Mormons, Montana or Wisconsin should be able to absorb 5 million new "American citizens". They can even take their Wall with them, and wail at it there (although the noise might annoy the neighbours )
Click to expand...






 RACIST MUCH.

 But if they did take the western wall what would hold up the carbuncles on top.  And how quickly would you be demanding they be driven out because they are doing so much better than the old invaders.


----------



## Challenger

Phoenall said:
			
		

> It took a lot longer than 100 years as Rome left in the late 4C and islam was not invented in mecca until the mid 7C. It then took a few more hundred years before the lands outside of the Arabian peninsular where converted by force of arms to islam.



Wow, what a spectacular display of historical ignorance. 



> It was not always called the river Jordan you know



What else was it called then?


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Here's a thought, why don't you give all of Palestine to the Palestinian's and all the Israeli's can move to the US.  We'll give you Wisconsin.  The Mormons already got dibs on Utah.



Really?  And you don't think the Wisconsiners are going to have a problem with that?  You think yet another expulsion in the Jewish people's history is going to be the solution to the problem?  Its been done time and time again and yet the "Jewish problem" remains.  No matter where in the world the Jewish people are everyone is still looking for some kind of _solution _to the Jewish problem.

Well, we are finished with other people looking for a "solution" to our existence.  We went home.  We returned to our homeland.  And whatever "Palestine" is to the "Palestinians", it is ALSO the homeland of the Jewish people.  It always has been.  

And when we say "never again" we mean that never again will we be treated like a problem to be solved or shipped away and made to go elsewhere.  We are exercising our rights to our homeland.  And if we have to fight for it, then so be it.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> And you don't think the Wisconsiners are going to have a problem with that?



Why should they? Even if, like the Palestinians did, they did have a problem with that, they too can be ignored.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> ...it is ALSO the homeland of the Jewish people...



Only because your fantasy novel tells you it is. If I were a Roman Catholic, would that give me the right to go to Italy and kick an Italian and his familly out of his home? 

If you as a Jewish person want to live in a future Muslim Palestine, I wouldn't stop you or object, and neither would most Palestinians. Problem with the Zionist colonists there at the moment is, they don't just want to live there, they want to rule there as colonial masters in an exclusively Jewish state.


----------



## Boston1

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took a lot longer than 100 years as Rome left in the late 4C and islam was not invented in mecca until the mid 7C. It then took a few more hundred years before the lands outside of the Arabian peninsular where converted by force of arms to islam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a spectacular display of historical ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not always called the river Jordan you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else was it called then?
Click to expand...


Uh, speaking of historical ignorance you might want to take a look at the following map.

Produced in 1709






Now here's the fun part. Its also one of the only places you'll see the word palestine in association with Canaan. The term palestine is actually very very rare on historical maps prior to about the mid 1800s 

OK so Challenger here's a challenge for you ;--) Since you now know where Canaan is, can you point to the Canaan Valley ?????

Cheers


----------



## Challenger

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It took a lot longer than 100 years as Rome left in the late 4C and islam was not invented in mecca until the mid 7C. It then took a few more hundred years before the lands outside of the Arabian peninsular where converted by force of arms to islam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a spectacular display of historical ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not always called the river Jordan you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else was it called then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, speaking of historical ignorance you might want to take a look at the following map.
> 
> Produced in 1709
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's the fun part. Its also one of the only places you'll see the word palestine in association with Canaan. The term palestine is actually very very rare on historical maps prior to about the mid 1800s
> 
> OK so Challenger here's a challenge for you ;--) Since you now know where Canaan is, can you point to the Canaan Valley ?????
> 
> Cheers
Click to expand...


Hey, you got me on that one, no I can't. Can you?  I found the river Jordan though. Nice European interpretation of Bible lands though, looks a lot like Middle Earth.

While we are on the subject of maps, here's a 17th century reproduction of a Roman map of the 4th 5th centuries, not a mention of a Canaan valley or Israel, just Palestine.






No idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate, but I'll play. Your go.


----------



## Boston1

Well you were having trouble with where the Canaan Valley area was, so I showed you a historic map of Canaan.

Try and keep up


----------



## Challenger

So that's a resounding, "Boston1 can't point to the Canaan valley either" O.K. that was a waste of time. I'll bear that in mind the next time you want to play games.


----------



## Boston1

You seem to be having trouble following the conversation. You'd asked where the Canaan valley was so I provided you with a map of Canaan.

Maybe this one from the 1690s will help you discover your error






You might take note that this one doesn't make any mention of a place called palestine.

So the question is, can you find the valley ? Or are you seriously suggesting there are no valleys in canaan ;--)

Its also of note that the Judaic people today inhabit the exact same area where their ancestors first developed from the more primitive stone age inhabitants something like 6500 years ago.

As I'm sure the rest of us can recall in your post # 384 you asked

Quote

"Canaan valley"? Where's that? The only major valley in the area is the Jordan valley

End Quote

But my favorite part was you followed that up in post # 389 with

Quote

Wow, what a spectacular display of historical ignorance.

End Quote

A statement I can wholeheartedly agree with, but of course not for the reasons you intended when you made that statement. Particularly if you are going to insist the Arab conquest didn't involve the slaughter or forced expulsion of the lands it conquered. The Judaic people have always been highly resistive to forced conversions..

In any case, maybe now that you know where Canaan is, you can point out the Canaan valley to us.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't think the Wisconsiners are going to have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they? Even if, like the Palestinians did, they did have a problem with that, they too can be ignored.
Click to expand...







 Which Palestinians are those, the ones who had lived there for over 4,500 years, or the ones that invaded in 1947 and stayed as refugees.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...it is ALSO the homeland of the Jewish people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because your fantasy novel tells you it is. If I were a Roman Catholic, would that give me the right to go to Italy and kick an Italian and his familly out of his home?
> 
> If you as a Jewish person want to live in a future Muslim Palestine, I wouldn't stop you or object, and neither would most Palestinians. Problem with the Zionist colonists there at the moment is, they don't just want to live there, they want to rule there as colonial masters in an exclusively Jewish state.
Click to expand...






 If you could show that they had stolen your home in 1948 and evicted you from it

 There will never be a Jew living in a muslim Palestine the muslims have made this one of their laws. What Zionist colonists are those, which nation sent them out to colonise Palestine for that nation ?. How about a link showing that the Jews want to rule over all of Palestine as colonial masters. ( remember that parts of Egypt, Syria and all of Jordan are Palestine )


----------



## Coyote

I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it.  The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.

In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan.  Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's.  It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it.  That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories".  What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield?  Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements?  RoccoR


----------



## Boston1

Not all of the mandated area was intended for the creation of an Israeli state. Only that west of the Jordan, east of the Jordan was intended for the Arab Muslim majority. Which is why no one really complained about it when it was set aside. The Zionists believed they'd be allowed the west bank area.

From there the Arab Muslims west of the Jordan pitched a fit and insisted they be given more land. So the league of nations caved in and thus began this whole show about land "intended" for a palestinian state. It would be fare more historically accurate to say it was intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland.

Which brings us to its occupation by hostile Arab forces.

I have the mandate around here somewhere, I'll try and look up the relevant articles

Wait a minute, its in the Jordan Memorandum, which I think I also have around here somewhere hang on a minute

Quote 

Geneva,
September 23rd, 1922.
ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan.
Note by the Secretary-General.
The Secretary-General has the honour to communicate for the information of the Members of the League, a memorandum relating to Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate presented by the British Government to the Council of the League on September 16th, 1922.
The memorandum was approved by the Council subject to the decision taken at its meeting in London on July 24th, 1922, with regard to the coming into force of the Palestine and Syrian mandates.
Memorandum by the British Representative.
1. Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine provides as follows :— " In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."
2. In pursuance of the provisions of this Article, His Majesty's Government invite the Council to pass the following resolution : — *"The following provisions of the Mandate for Palestine are not applicable to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all territory lying to the east of a line drawn from a point two miles west of the town of Akaba on the Gulf of that name up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan to its junction with the River Yarmuk; thence up the centre of that river to the Syrian Frontier."*
Preamble. — Recitals 2 and 3.
Article 2. — The words "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and".
Article 4.
Article 6.
Article 7. — The sentence " There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."
Article 11. — The second sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph.
Article 13.
Article 14.
Article 22.
Article 23.
In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Trans-Jordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.
3. His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Trans-Jordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable.

End Quote


----------



## montelatici

Posting text that confirms that Trans-Jordania was legally a separate territory and country, eventually becoming a Hashemite Kingdom and not Palestinian makes game, set and match. 

"ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. *Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*"

 " In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of* Palestine"
*
"*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,* the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the *latter country, "*


----------



## Boston1

LOL no. What it proves is that the area known as Trans Jordan was within the mandate for palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

Coyote,  et al,

Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this.  This is the short answer.  You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,  

The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish.  The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done.  It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews.  The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews.  It was mandate _(an official record of direction and guidance)_ speaking from the Allied Powers to the British.  Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.



Coyote said:


> I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it.  The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.
> 
> In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan.  Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's.  It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it.  That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories".  What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield?  Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements?  RoccoR


*(COMMENT)*

The Balfour Declaration was a quasi-Diplomatic Note written by Lord Balfour _(as the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary) _to Lord Rothschild, a prominent citizen in the British business community and well known leader in the British Jewish community.  Lord Rothschild, son of Baron Ferdinand von Rothschild, Austrian Noble, was being asked to relay information to the Zionist Federation; on a decision approved by the British Cabinet.  It too was not a promise.  It was really a diplomatic notice of a Cabinet Level decision; in a very broad brush stroke.  But this broad language would be used over again in the San Remo Covenant (an agreement between Allied Powers), and the Mandate (a directive from the Allied Powers).

If there were implied promises _(mind you --- these implied promise were not made to either the Arab or Jewish People)_ that would be that:

•  The establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) in Palestine.
•  And the intention the the JNH would not adversely impact the  civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish People.​
It should be remembered that the that the framework language of the Mandate was crafted in 1920, and by by the Allied Powers at San Remo.  They already knew what was going to happen before the _Paulet-Newcombe Agreement ( British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France )_ had been finalized.  It should also be remembered that the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration had already passed their authority to the Civil Administration for the territory on 1 July 1920 (See Interim Report); less than three months after the San Remo Convention, but a couple years before the Mandate was finalized.

All the various "White Papers" and "Commission Reports" are just that.  They are take as observation and interpretations at the time they were written and under the political pressures of the day.  They are not authoritative or directive in nature.  They do not have the force of law or establish an obligation.  And you would be hard pressed to find one that was written for either the Arabs or Jewish People.

In April 1946, the League of Nations had its last meeting; with all assets having been transferred to the United Nations as the successor organization.  Under Chapter XII, Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (1945), all active Mandates were transferred to the UN Trusteeship System.

There were many events that happened during the War in which resulted in "impressions" and "consequences" but none the less had no obligations attached to it.  One of the coincidence of the time (1946 to 1948), was the realization that the British Government, in an attempt to placate the Arab Palestinians and slow immigration down, Rammed the Ship and and tactically boarded the vessel.  In the end, the ship with nearly 4000 Jewish men, women and children were forced way and eventually to the Port of Hamburg.   The Jews were forced off the ship by British armed forces and transported to a couple Displaced Persons Camp Camps near Lubek.  The coincidence was that on the day the UN Special Commission for Palestine (UNSCOP) arrived in Palestine, so did the Exodus.; and the stories told did not go unheard.  Having said that, the actual policies of the US and Britain did not just apply to the Jews, but also to the Russians and the Polish --- and went something like this:

By late June the British Foreign Office decided to repatriate all Russian POWs, callously disregarding the consequences of such a policy (early in the war Stalin had made it clear that any Soviet citizens who were even temporarily out of Communist control would be regarded as traitors. Official Orders threatened “deserters” and POWs with draconian measures). On June 24, 1944, Patrick Dean, the Assistant Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office, declared: “In due course all those with whom the Soviet authorities desire to deal must … be handed over to them, and we are not concerned with the fact that they may be shot or otherwise more harshly dealt with than they might be under English law.”
From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Winter 1980 (Vol. 1, No. 4), pages 371-376.​
The Jews, coming from Poland, Russia and Britain all passed on the stories.  It was not a shining moment in Western Ethics.  Certainly, all the way forward to the British withdraw, while many people may have had the impression that promises were made; nothing was promised at all until General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I'm thinking that you are making a very broad statement here for something that is not that simple.  And certainly you misinterpreted Article 25 here.



montelatici said:


> Posting text that confirms that Trans-Jordania was legally a separate territory and country, eventually becoming a Hashemite Kingdom and not Palestinian makes game, set and match.
> 
> "ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. *Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*"
> 
> " In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of* Palestine"
> *
> "*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,* the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the *latter country, "*


*(COMMENT)*

If the Trans - Jordan area was not part of the mandate, it would not be mention in a Palestine Mandate.  They would have made a separate Mandate.

I recommend you read this closely.


M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:


"There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."
*SOURCE: * TENTH MEETING. _Held on Friday, July _5_th, _1929,_ at _4_ p.m._


[TBODY][TR][TD="align: center"]



07/19/1929​[/TD][TD]C.305.M.105[/TD][TD]Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 15th session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission
[/TD][/TR][/TBODY]
This should be very clear to you:

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this.  This is the short answer.  You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,
> 
> The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish.  The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done.  It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews.  The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews.  It was mandate _(an official record of direction and guidance)_ speaking from the Allied Powers to the British.  Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it.  The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.
> 
> In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan.  Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's.  It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it.  That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories".  What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield?  Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements?  RoccoR
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Balfour Declaration was a quasi-Diplomatic Note written by Lord Balfour _(as the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary) _to Lord Rothschild, a prominent citizen in the British business community and well known leader in the British Jewish community.  Lord Rothschild, son of Baron Ferdinand von Rothschild, Austrian Noble, was being asked to relay information to the Zionist Federation; on a decision approved by the British Cabinet.  It too was not a promise.  It was really a diplomatic notice of a Cabinet Level decision; in a very broad brush stroke.  But this broad language would be used over again in the San Remo Covenant (an agreement between Allied Powers), and the Mandate (a directive from the Allied Powers).
> 
> If there were implied promises _(mind you --- these implied promise were not made to either the Arab or Jewish People)_ that would be that:
> 
> •  The establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) in Palestine.
> •  And the intention the the JNH would not adversely impact the  civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish People.​
> It should be remembered that the that the framework language of the Mandate was crafted in 1920, and by by the Allied Powers at San Remo.  They already knew what was going to happen before the _Paulet-Newcombe Agreement ( British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France )_ had been finalized.  It should also be remembered that the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration had already passed their authority to the Civil Administration for the territory on 1 July 1920 (See Interim Report); less than three months after the San Remo Convention, but a couple years before the Mandate was finalized.
> 
> All the various "White Papers" and "Commission Reports" are just that.  They are take as observation and interpretations at the time they were written and under the political pressures of the day.  They are not authoritative or directive in nature.  They do not have the force of law or establish an obligation.  And you would be hard pressed to find one that was written for either the Arabs or Jewish People.
> 
> In April 1946, the League of Nations had its last meeting; with all assets having been transferred to the United Nations as the successor organization.  Under Chapter XII, Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (1945), all active Mandates were transferred to the UN Trusteeship System.
> 
> There were many events that happened during the War in which resulted in "impressions" and "consequences" but none the less had no obligations attached to it.  One of the coincidence of the time (1946 to 1948), was the realization that the British Government, in an attempt to placate the Arab Palestinians and slow immigration down, Rammed the Ship and and tactically boarded the vessel.  In the end, the ship with nearly 4000 Jewish men, women and children were forced way and eventually to the Port of Hamburg.   The Jews were forced off the ship by British armed forces and transported to a couple Displaced Persons Camp Camps near Lubek.  The coincidence was that on the day the UN Special Commission for Palestine (UNSCOP) arrived in Palestine, so did the Exodus.; and the stories told did not go unheard.  Having said that, the actual policies of the US and Britain did not just apply to the Jews, but also to the Russians and the Polish --- and went something like this:
> 
> By late June the British Foreign Office decided to repatriate all Russian POWs, callously disregarding the consequences of such a policy (early in the war Stalin had made it clear that any Soviet citizens who were even temporarily out of Communist control would be regarded as traitors. Official Orders threatened “deserters” and POWs with draconian measures). On June 24, 1944, Patrick Dean, the Assistant Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office, declared: “In due course all those with whom the Soviet authorities desire to deal must … be handed over to them, and we are not concerned with the fact that they may be shot or otherwise more harshly dealt with than they might be under English law.”
> From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Winter 1980 (Vol. 1, No. 4), pages 371-376.​
> The Jews, coming from Poland, Russia and Britain all passed on the stories.  It was not a shining moment in Western Ethics.  Certainly, all the way forward to the British withdraw, while may people may my have had the impression that promises were made; nothing was promised at all until General Assembly Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Thank you, and - wow.  I had no idea about the Russians and the Poles.  That's as shameful as turning away the St. Louis 

I appreciate this - I had a lot of erroneous ideas about what the "Mandate" was and thought it was legally binding rather than suggestive and I can see how both factions take implied promises as having the force of law.  And no wonder the region is in such a mess.


----------



## Boston1

Um, I think there is a slight error going on here. The British mandate for palestine was a legal instrument legitimizing British administration of the area with a directive for how it was to proceed with the intention of a national Jewish homeland.

It failed and all it really did was carve Jordan from the mandated area but still.

It is a legal instrument and as such was considered legally binding to its signatories.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiNp7bezL7KAhUok4MKHWggBvsQFggfMAA&url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp&usg=AFQjCNGSfXVXxWpR5xBk3NpmMlzoCrBXAg&sig2=p84k52q3SzQK3045y7wLWg&bvm=bv.112454388,d.amc

Quote
*ARTICLE 14.*
The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly.
End Quote 

See also article 22


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I'm thinking that you are making a very broad statement here for something that is not that simple.  And certainly you misinterpreted Article 25 here.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting text that confirms that Trans-Jordania was legally a separate territory and country, eventually becoming a Hashemite Kingdom and not Palestinian makes game, set and match.
> 
> "ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. *Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*"
> 
> " In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of* Palestine"
> *
> "*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,* the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the *latter country, "*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If the Trans - Jordan area was not part of the mandate, it would not be mention in a Palestine Mandate.  They would have made a separate Mandate.
> 
> I recommend you read this closely.
> 
> M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:
> 
> 
> "There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."
> *SOURCE: * TENTH MEETING. _Held on Friday, July _5_th, _1929,_ at _4_ p.m._​This should be very clear to you:
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I have misinterpreted nothing, you have misinterpreted the text. No one is saying that it was not part of the Mandate, the legal instrument.  It was, however, a separate territory and, as the text further states, a separate "country", not subject to hosting the Jewish National Home.  Which was to be hosted within the territory called Palestine, not Trans-Jordania in the manner stated below which refers exclusively to the territory of Palestine:


"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English. *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine.* They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded _in Palestine._ 

In other words the claim that Trans-Jordania was somehow intended as the state for the Palestinians is a ridiculous claim, when in fact it was a territory intended for the Hashemites to rule over the native Bedouin Arabians in the territory of Trans-Jordania, who were not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine


----------



## Boston1

You are the king of misinterpretation 

Could you please point to this mythical land of Trans Jordan ;--)

1759 map of Judaic tribes in the Canaan valley area






1851 map of Southern Syria






Or this one from 1921 showing the suggested mandated areas.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."

Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home.  That could be accomplished in any number of ways.



montelatici said:


> _ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. _*Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*_"_
> 
> _" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of_* Palestine"*
> 
> _"_*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,*_ the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the _*latter country, "*


*(COMMENT)*

Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate.  That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a thought, why don't you give all of Palestine to the Palestinian's and all the Israeli's can move to the US.  We'll give you Wisconsin.  The Mormons already got dibs on Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And you don't think the Wisconsiners are going to have a problem with that?  You think yet another expulsion in the Jewish people's history is going to be the solution to the problem?  Its been done time and time again and yet the "Jewish problem" remains.  No matter where in the world the Jewish people are everyone is still looking for some kind of _solution _to the Jewish problem.
> 
> Well, we are finished with other people looking for a "solution" to our existence.  We went home.  We returned to our homeland.  And whatever "Palestine" is to the "Palestinians", it is ALSO the homeland of the Jewish people.  It always has been.
> 
> And when we say "never again" we mean that never again will we be treated like a problem to be solved or shipped away and made to go elsewhere.  We are exercising our rights to our homeland.  And if we have to fight for it, then so be it.
Click to expand...

Really? And you don't think the Wisconsiners are going to have a problem with that?​
Why should that be a problem? They have 49 other US states to go to. Do they want to hog the whole country for themselves?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...it is ALSO the homeland of the Jewish people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because your fantasy novel tells you it is. If I were a Roman Catholic, would that give me the right to go to Italy and kick an Italian and his familly out of his home?
> 
> If you as a Jewish person want to live in a future Muslim Palestine, I wouldn't stop you or object, and neither would most Palestinians. Problem with the Zionist colonists there at the moment is, they don't just want to live there, they want to rule there as colonial masters in an exclusively Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could show that they had stolen your home in 1948 and evicted you from it
> 
> There will never be a Jew living in a muslim Palestine the muslims have made this one of their laws. What Zionist colonists are those, which nation sent them out to colonise Palestine for that nation ?. How about a link showing that the Jews want to rule over all of Palestine as colonial masters. ( remember that parts of Egypt, Syria and all of Jordan are Palestine )
Click to expand...

There will never be a Jew living in a muslim Palestine the muslims have made this one of their laws.​
Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Coyote said:


> I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it.  The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.
> 
> In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan.  Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's.  It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it.  That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories".  What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield?  Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements?  RoccoR


Actually none of the land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to live in Palestine as Palestinians citizens with the rest of the Palestinians.

Article 7 Palestine Mandate


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this.  This is the short answer.  You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,
> 
> The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish.  The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done.  It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews.  The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews.  It was mandate _(an official record of direction and guidance)_ speaking from the Allied Powers to the British.  Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it.  The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.
> 
> In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan.  Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's.  It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it.  That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories".  What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield?  Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements?  RoccoR
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Balfour Declaration was a quasi-Diplomatic Note written by Lord Balfour _(as the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary) _to Lord Rothschild, a prominent citizen in the British business community and well known leader in the British Jewish community.  Lord Rothschild, son of Baron Ferdinand von Rothschild, Austrian Noble, was being asked to relay information to the Zionist Federation; on a decision approved by the British Cabinet.  It too was not a promise.  It was really a diplomatic notice of a Cabinet Level decision; in a very broad brush stroke.  But this broad language would be used over again in the San Remo Covenant (an agreement between Allied Powers), and the Mandate (a directive from the Allied Powers).
> 
> If there were implied promises _(mind you --- these implied promise were not made to either the Arab or Jewish People)_ that would be that:
> 
> •  The establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) in Palestine.
> •  And the intention the the JNH would not adversely impact the  civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish People.​
> It should be remembered that the that the framework language of the Mandate was crafted in 1920, and by by the Allied Powers at San Remo.  They already knew what was going to happen before the _Paulet-Newcombe Agreement ( British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France )_ had been finalized.  It should also be remembered that the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration had already passed their authority to the Civil Administration for the territory on 1 July 1920 (See Interim Report); less than three months after the San Remo Convention, but a couple years before the Mandate was finalized.
> 
> All the various "White Papers" and "Commission Reports" are just that.  They are take as observation and interpretations at the time they were written and under the political pressures of the day.  They are not authoritative or directive in nature.  They do not have the force of law or establish an obligation.  And you would be hard pressed to find one that was written for either the Arabs or Jewish People.
> 
> In April 1946, the League of Nations had its last meeting; with all assets having been transferred to the United Nations as the successor organization.  Under Chapter XII, Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (1945), all active Mandates were transferred to the UN Trusteeship System.
> 
> There were many events that happened during the War in which resulted in "impressions" and "consequences" but none the less had no obligations attached to it.  One of the coincidence of the time (1946 to 1948), was the realization that the British Government, in an attempt to placate the Arab Palestinians and slow immigration down, Rammed the Ship and and tactically boarded the vessel.  In the end, the ship with nearly 4000 Jewish men, women and children were forced way and eventually to the Port of Hamburg.   The Jews were forced off the ship by British armed forces and transported to a couple Displaced Persons Camp Camps near Lubek.  The coincidence was that on the day the UN Special Commission for Palestine (UNSCOP) arrived in Palestine, so did the Exodus.; and the stories told did not go unheard.  Having said that, the actual policies of the US and Britain did not just apply to the Jews, but also to the Russians and the Polish --- and went something like this:
> 
> By late June the British Foreign Office decided to repatriate all Russian POWs, callously disregarding the consequences of such a policy (early in the war Stalin had made it clear that any Soviet citizens who were even temporarily out of Communist control would be regarded as traitors. Official Orders threatened “deserters” and POWs with draconian measures). On June 24, 1944, Patrick Dean, the Assistant Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office, declared: “In due course all those with whom the Soviet authorities desire to deal must … be handed over to them, and we are not concerned with the fact that they may be shot or otherwise more harshly dealt with than they might be under English law.”
> From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Winter 1980 (Vol. 1, No. 4), pages 371-376.​
> The Jews, coming from Poland, Russia and Britain all passed on the stories.  It was not a shining moment in Western Ethics.  Certainly, all the way forward to the British withdraw, while many people may have had the impression that promises were made; nothing was promised at all until General Assembly Resolution 181(II).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

while many people may have had the impression that promises were made; nothing was promised at all until General Assembly Resolution 181(II).​
Which was really a *non binding recommendation* that was never implemented by the Security Council. Not much of a promise.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."
> 
> Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home.  That could be accomplished in any number of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. _*Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*_"_
> 
> _" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of_* Palestine"*
> 
> _"_*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,*_ the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the _*latter country, "*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate.  That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Then we are in agreement.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."
> 
> Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home.  That could be accomplished in any number of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. _*Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*_"_
> 
> _" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of_* Palestine"*
> 
> _"_*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,*_ the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the _*latter country, "*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate.  That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish. 

Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions.  While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance.  And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Many people misunderstand the intention of *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine *and its end political product.  In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that:  " When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations."  And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.

*(OF INTEREST)*

This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations.  There was a peculiar order of operation here _(a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today)_.  In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed.  In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now  ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign.     On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved.  It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 _(day after membership)_ that the Lausanne Protocol was signed.  It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).

It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary.  While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite.  Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them _(each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations.  The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.

*EXCERPTS:* *The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:*

Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ... 

The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...

Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.​
In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues.  It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change.  The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal.  The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today _(none)_, as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago _(none)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."
> 
> Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home.  That could be accomplished in any number of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. _*Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*_"_
> 
> _" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of_* Palestine"*
> 
> _"_*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,*_ the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the _*latter country, "*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate.  That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.
> 
> Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions.  While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance.  And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.
> 
> Many people misunderstand the intention of *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine *and its end political product.  In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that:  " When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations."  And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.
> 
> *(OF INTEREST)*
> 
> This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations.  There was a peculiar order of operation here _(a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today)_.  In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed.  In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now  ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign.     On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved.  It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 _(day after membership)_ that the Lausanne Protocol was signed.  It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).
> 
> It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary.  While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite.  Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them _(each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations.  The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.
> 
> *EXCERPTS:* *The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:*
> 
> Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...
> 
> The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...
> 
> Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.​
> In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues.  It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change.  The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal.  The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today _(none)_, as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago _(none)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


There was never any intention to allow the non-Jews of Palestine to be sovereign over any part of the territory of Palestine.  The citizenship offer with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza is just a further confirmation that the Jews of Israel have never had any intention of allowing any other state, other than the Jewish state to rule in the territory of Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."
> 
> Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home.  That could be accomplished in any number of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. _*Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*_"_
> 
> _" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of_* Palestine"*
> 
> _"_*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,*_ the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the _*latter country, "*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate.  That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.
> 
> Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions.  While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance.  And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.
> 
> Many people misunderstand the intention of *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine *and its end political product.  In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that:  " When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations."  And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.
> 
> *(OF INTEREST)*
> 
> This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations.  There was a peculiar order of operation here _(a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today)_.  In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed.  In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now  ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign.     On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved.  It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 _(day after membership)_ that the Lausanne Protocol was signed.  It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).
> 
> It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary.  While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite.  Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them _(each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations.  The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.
> 
> *EXCERPTS:* *The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:*
> 
> Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...
> 
> The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...
> 
> Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.​
> In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues.  It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change.  The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal.  The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today _(none)_, as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago _(none)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was never any intention to allow the non-Jews of Palestine to be sovereign over any part of the territory of Palestine.  The citizenship offer with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza is just a further confirmation that the Jews of Israel have never had any intention of allowing any other state, other than the Jewish state to rule in the territory of Palestine.
Click to expand...

Your shrill screeching serves only to buttress your self-imposed ignorance. In both action and policy, Israel has demonstrated a willingness to return land in exchange for peace. 

You should take the time to read the Hamas Charter for an instructive lesson in the "intentions" you falsely and mindlessly accuse Israel of pursuing. The fascist Charter makes explicit references to the Islamo-waqf  thingy. Raise your hand and ask questions when you don't understand Islamo-fascism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."
> 
> Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home.  That could be accomplished in any number of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. _*Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*_"_
> 
> _" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of_* Palestine"*
> 
> _"_*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,*_ the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the _*latter country, "*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate.  That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.
> 
> Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions.  While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance.  And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.
> 
> Many people misunderstand the intention of *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine *and its end political product.  In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that:  " When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations."  And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.
> 
> *(OF INTEREST)*
> 
> This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations.  There was a peculiar order of operation here _(a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today)_.  In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed.  In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now  ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign.     On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved.  It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 _(day after membership)_ that the Lausanne Protocol was signed.  It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).
> 
> It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary.  While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite.  Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them _(each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations.  The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.
> 
> *EXCERPTS:* *The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:*
> 
> Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...
> 
> The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...
> 
> Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.​
> In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues.  It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change.  The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal.  The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today _(none)_, as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago _(none)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, * created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.*

Negotiated by Whom?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."
> 
> Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home.  That could be accomplished in any number of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> _ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. _*Territory known as Trans-Jordan.*_"_
> 
> _" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of_* Palestine"*
> 
> _"_*In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan,*_ the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the _*latter country, "*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate.  That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.
> 
> Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions.  While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance.  And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.
> 
> Many people misunderstand the intention of *Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine *and its end political product.  In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that:  " When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations."  And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.
> 
> *(OF INTEREST)*
> 
> This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations.  There was a peculiar order of operation here _(a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today)_.  In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed.  In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now  ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign.     On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved.  It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 _(day after membership)_ that the Lausanne Protocol was signed.  It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).
> 
> It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary.  While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite.  Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them _(each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_.  Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations.  The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.
> 
> *EXCERPTS:* *The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:*
> 
> Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...
> 
> The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...
> 
> Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.​
> In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues.  It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change.  The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal.  The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today _(none)_, as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago _(none)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them​
That seems strange because the 1949 UN armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan (that Israel signed) calls the territory behind those borders Palestine.

By signing those treaties Israel agreed that the territory is Palestine yet later comes by and declares borders on Palestinian territory.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  P F Tinmore,  et al,

Some of this is semantics and some of this is unnecessary confusion,



montelatici said:


> There was never any intention to allow the non-Jews of Palestine to be sovereign over any part of the territory of Palestine.  The citizenship offer with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza is just a further confirmation that the Jews of Israel have never had any intention of allowing any other state, other than the Jewish state to rule in the territory of Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

The offer of Citizenship for the People of Gaza was mutually exclusive of any other negotiated terms under consideration at the time..

What it does imply, since it was UN mediated, that there was no "inherent" or "inalienable" quality between the people of Gaza and the Gaza Strip itself.  It was all negotiable.

There was no expression of intend on the part of the Israelis as to the political negotiation limitation pertaining to a two-state solution.  While the Israelis did not see this two-state solution as an ideal outcome, it was not beyond discussion.  The reverse was not true.  It was the expressed and implicit political position that the "Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> That seems strange because the 1949 UN armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan (that Israel signed) calls the territory behind those borders Palestine.
> 
> By signing those treaties Israel agreed that the territory is Palestine yet later comes by and declares borders on Palestinian territory.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In so far as the intention of the term Palestine, as used for the intervening period between 1922 and 1948, were the territory to which the Mandate applied, within such boundaries as may have been affixed by the Allied Powers and transferred to UN Administration in 1946.

Israel declared independence in May 1948.  The Armistice Arrangements of which you speak were negotiated along the lines of the "Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA)" as recognized by the Military Commanders for each party to the conflict at the time of the cease-fire.  There was no political meaning to the demarcation lines beyond the normal recognition of any Armistice Arrangement.  The issue of borders and boundaries were an issue to be taken-up at the peace negotiations.

•  First:

The entire territory was "Palestine" as defined by the Palestine Order in Council and within the boundaries that were originally defined by the Allied Powers.  Don't make the mistake or become confused with some entity that inherently links the people of Gaza; it was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine was (at that time) a territory transferred under Article 77, of the UN Charter for administered.​•  Second:
Nowhere in Article 3 - International Boundary, Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, is any derivation of Palestine even mentioned.

Within the General Armistice Agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom and Israel, Palestine is mentioned as the territory determined by the Allied Powers.  The Armistice deals with the separation of forces with a view towards a more permanent peace established by treaty.  No where does the Armistice establish the boundaries of a country of Palestine as a legal entity.​Nowhere within Article II - Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel is a new entity of Palestine established and described by boundary.  I does say:  "Permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the *former mandated territory* of Palestine."  That is the "FORMER" mandate territory.  No new legal entity is established by the borders.

Within the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel, there is NO new entity describe as Palestine.  It again refers to the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council.​Now you may have notice that I list the Treaties first and the Armistice second; why?  Because without regard to what the Armistice says, the Armistice dies and is replace by the treaty in accordance with Article XII of the respective Arguments.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, * created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory. *
> 
> 
> 
> Negotiated by Whom?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Armistice Agreements which establish the various demarcation lines were negotiated with the assistance of the United Nations Acting Mediator on Palestine and the United Nations Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization, but the parties did the negotiations to the Armistice were Israel and the respective military commanders of the Arab governments _(Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt)_.  Nothing unusual.  With minor adjustment, the Armistice Lines followed the FEBA at the cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Some of this is semantics and some of this is unnecessary confusion,
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never any intention to allow the non-Jews of Palestine to be sovereign over any part of the territory of Palestine.  The citizenship offer with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza is just a further confirmation that the Jews of Israel have never had any intention of allowing any other state, other than the Jewish state to rule in the territory of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The offer of Citizenship for the People of Gaza was mutually exclusive of any other negotiated terms under consideration at the time..
> 
> What it does imply, since it was UN mediated, that there was no "inherent" or "inalienable" quality between the people of Gaza and the Gaza Strip itself.  It was all negotiable.
> 
> There was no expression of intend on the part of the Israelis as to the political negotiation limitation pertaining to a two-state solution.  While the Israelis did not see this two-state solution as an ideal outcome, it was not beyond discussion.  The reverse was not true.  It was the expressed and implicit political position that the "Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> That seems strange because the 1949 UN armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan (that Israel signed) calls the territory behind those borders Palestine.
> 
> By signing those treaties Israel agreed that the territory is Palestine yet later comes by and declares borders on Palestinian territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In so far as the intention of the term Palestine, as used for the intervening period between 1922 and 1948, were the territory to which the Mandate applied, within such boundaries as may have been affixed by the Allied Powers and transferred to UN Administration in 1946.
> 
> Israel declared independence in May 1948.  The Armistice Arrangements of which you speak were negotiated along the lines of the "Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA)" as recognized by the Military Commanders for each party to the conflict at the time of the cease-fire.  There was no political meaning to the demarcation lines beyond the normal recognition of any Armistice Arrangement.  The issue of borders and boundaries were an issue to be taken-up at the peace negotiations.
> 
> •  First:
> 
> The entire territory was "Palestine" as defined by the Palestine Order in Council and within the boundaries that were originally defined by the Allied Powers.  Don't make the mistake or become confused with some entity that inherently links the people of Gaza; it was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine was (at that time) a territory transferred under Article 77, of the UN Charter for administered.​•  Second:
> Nowhere in Article 3 - International Boundary, Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, is any derivation of Palestine even mentioned.
> 
> Within the General Armistice Agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom and Israel, Palestine is mentioned as the territory determined by the Allied Powers.  The Armistice deals with the separation of forces with a view towards a more permanent peace established by treaty.  No where does the Armistice establish the boundaries of a country of Palestine as a legal entity.​Nowhere within Article II - Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel is a new entity of Palestine established and described by boundary.  I does say:  "Permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the *former mandated territory* of Palestine."  That is the "FORMER" mandate territory.  No new legal entity is established by the borders.
> 
> Within the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel, there is NO new entity describe as Palestine.  It again refers to the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council.​Now you may have notice that I list the Treaties first and the Armistice second; why?  Because without regard to what the Armistice says, the Armistice dies and is replace by the treaty in accordance with Article XII of the respective Arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, * created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Negotiated by Whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Armistice Agreements which establish the various demarcation lines were negotiated with the assistance of the United Nations Acting Mediator on Palestine and the United Nations Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization, but the parties did the negotiations to the Armistice were Israel and the respective military commanders of the Arab governments _(Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt)_.  Nothing unusual.  With minor adjustment, the Armistice Lines followed the FEBA at the cease-fire.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There is an unexplained jump in here.

In a subsequent case Palestine was found to be a foreign state notwithstanding the fact that it was under a British mandate. Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593.

Blair Holdings Corporation v. Rubinstein, 133 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)​---------------------------
The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 RN 3 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

Opinio Juris  » Blog Archive  M.B.Z. v. Clinton: Getting to the Merits on the Recognition Power - Opinio Juris​
The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements  divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The armistice lines were to define where Jordanian forces, Egyptian forces, and Israeli forces could not cross.

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

You keep looking for a "transfer" from some to some.  That is not how self-determination and declarative sovereignty works.  It is not a real estate process.

The State of Palestine never had a property transfer either.

How are you applying these cases, to the question at hand.  State your case.



P F Tinmore said:


> There is an unexplained jump in here.
> 
> In a subsequent case Palestine was found to be a foreign state notwithstanding the fact that it was under a British mandate. Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593.
> 
> Blair Holdings Corporation v. Rubinstein, 133 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)​---------------------------
> The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 RN 3 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”
> 
> Opinio Juris  » Blog Archive  M.B.Z. v. Clinton: Getting to the Merits on the Recognition Power - Opinio Juris​
> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements  divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The armistice lines were to define where Jordanian forces, Egyptian forces, and Israeli forces could not cross.
> 
> So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?


*(COMMENT)*

You are mixing US Law domestic law  with  Customary and International Law.  Whatever or However the US may treat Occupied Territory, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Practical application of law.

•  There was no transfer.  Armistice Agreements do not change sovereignty.  The actions of other countries change sovereignty through the assumption of absolute authority.
•  Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593.  Is an old case.  At that time --- US law did not know how to interpret what a Mandate Government was.  But in any event it was a foreign government subject to the same liabilities as any other foreign government.  Except in the of a Mandate Government, the Mandatory was responsible.
•  M.B.Z. v. Clinton Is a 21st Century Case that pits Congressional Authority against Constitutional Authority.  Again this is a US Domestic Law case.
•  Foreign Occupation does not automatically mean there is a change in the state.  It may impact on which country has absolute authority (the definition of Sovereignty).​You are fishing here. What's more is that you are trying to confuse the issue as if US Domestic interpretation somehow changes the international impact of some laws.  The US has a definition for terrorism, but that does not impact international law which does not have a definition.

Tell me how you want to apply the cases you have cited.  OR, ask a very specific question.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You keep looking for a "transfer" from some to some.  That is not how self-determination and declarative sovereignty works.  It is not a real estate process.
> 
> The State of Palestine never had a property transfer either.
> 
> How are you applying these cases, to the question at hand.  State your case.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an unexplained jump in here.
> 
> In a subsequent case Palestine was found to be a foreign state notwithstanding the fact that it was under a British mandate. Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593.
> 
> Blair Holdings Corporation v. Rubinstein, 133 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)​---------------------------
> The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 RN 3 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”
> 
> Opinio Juris  » Blog Archive  M.B.Z. v. Clinton: Getting to the Merits on the Recognition Power - Opinio Juris​
> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements  divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The armistice lines were to define where Jordanian forces, Egyptian forces, and Israeli forces could not cross.
> 
> So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are mixing US Law domestic law  with  Customary and International Law.  Whatever or However the US may treat Occupied Territory, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Practical application of law.
> 
> •  There was no transfer.  Armistice Agreements do not change sovereignty.  The actions of other countries change sovereignty through the assumption of absolute authority.
> •  Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593.  Is an old case.  At that time --- US law did not know how to interpret what a Mandate Government was.  But in any event it was a foreign government subject to the same liabilities as any other foreign government.  Except in the of a Mandate Government, the Mandatory was responsible.
> •  M.B.Z. v. Clinton Is a 21st Century Case that pits Congressional Authority against Constitutional Authority.  Again this is a US Domestic Law case.
> •  Foreign Occupation does not automatically mean there is a change in the state.  It may impact on which country has absolute authority (the definition of Sovereignty).​You are fishing here. What's more is that you are trying to confuse the issue as if US Domestic interpretation somehow changes the international impact of some laws.  The US has a definition for terrorism, but that does not impact international law which does not have a definition.
> 
> Tell me how you want to apply the cases you have cited.  OR, ask a very specific question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I am not confusing domestic issues. I posted that as one of many examples showing that Palestine is a state. External interference is illegal, attacking a country is illegal, taking land by force is illegal, and more. Occupying another state is not a transfer of sovereignty.

I did ask a specific question. You keep ducking it.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Don't tell me I've ducked a question.  Tell me what the specific question is.  Don't pretend to play some intellectual game.

What is the question?



P F Tinmore said:


> I am not confusing domestic issues. I posted that as one of many examples showing that Palestine is a state. External interference is illegal, attacking a country is illegal, taking land by force is illegal, and more. Occupying another state is not a transfer of sovereignty.
> 
> I did ask a specific question. You keep ducking it.


*(COMMENT)*

Ever since the Region was relinquished from the Ottomans, the Occupying Powers maintained a government; not necessarily a "state."   There are several cases that use commercial judgments in which the Mandate government is treated as a "state."   That does not mean anything in particular politically.  I know that some pro-Palestinians love to throw these oddities into the game just for confusion.  But it actually does not change anything.

At no time in the last 100 years, have the Arab Palestinians, exercised "absolute and perpetual power" of a the territory; no matter what it is called.

Both the concepts of state and sovereignty are territorial conceptions. The ‘Westphalian state’ has distinct boundaries, and until recently, its ideal of sovereignty emphasized the right of non-intervention and the inviolability of borders.

What is interesting about the Palestinian Claim, is that one the one hand,  Israel is accused of being and Occupation Power --- holding effective control.    The classical definition of sovereignty centers on the state as a legal entity. In this respect, the state is a legal person with all the rights and obligations under international law.   Palestine has been a legal entity since the end of the Great War (WWI).  But is has not been self-governing.  And there is a significant difference between what the Palestinian actually govern and what a self-governing entity is.  For the Palestinians to merely contend that Palestine _(alla 1988)_ is some sort of self-governing institution; the actual reality (as opposed to the conceptual assignment of self-government) proves differently. 

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Don't tell me I've ducked a question.  Tell me what the specific question is.  Don't pretend to play some intellectual game.
> 
> What is the question?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not confusing domestic issues. I posted that as one of many examples showing that Palestine is a state. External interference is illegal, attacking a country is illegal, taking land by force is illegal, and more. Occupying another state is not a transfer of sovereignty.
> 
> I did ask a specific question. You keep ducking it.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Ever since the Region was relinquished from the Ottomans, the Occupying Powers maintained a government; not necessarily a "state."   There are several cases that use commercial judgments in which the Mandate government is treated as a "state."   That does not mean anything in particular politically.  I know that some pro-Palestinians love to throw these oddities into the game just for confusion.  But it actually does not change anything.
> 
> At no time in the last 100 years, have the Arab Palestinians, exercised "absolute and perpetual power" of a the territory; no matter what it is called.
> 
> Both the concepts of state and sovereignty are territorial conceptions. The ‘Westphalian state’ has distinct boundaries, and until recently, its ideal of sovereignty emphasized the right of non-intervention and the inviolability of borders.
> 
> What is interesting about the Palestinian Claim, is that one the one hand,  Israel is accused of being and Occupation Power --- holding effective control.    The classical definition of sovereignty centers on the state as a legal entity. In this respect, the state is a legal person with all the rights and obligations under international law.   Palestine has been a legal entity since the end of the Great War (WWI).  But is has not been self-governing.  And there is a significant difference between what the Palestinian actually govern and what a self-governing entity is.  For the Palestinians to merely contend that Palestine _(alla 1988)_ is some sort of self-governing institution; the actual reality (as opposed to the conceptual assignment of self-government) proves differently.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...

At no time in the last 100 years, have the Arab Palestinians, exercised "absolute and perpetual power" of a the territory; no matter what it is called.​
Why all the smoke. You know that the sovereign rights of a people includes non self governing territories including occupation and colonialism.

BTW, the question was:

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?


----------



## montelatici

I believe that there is a failure to communicate.  Rocco basically believes that because a native people did not have a sovereign state, removing the native people to make room for a "deserving" foreign population is absolutely moral and legal. But, the issue of having or not having a sovereign state is just subterfuge on Rocco's part. 

The fact is, Rocco would defend the colonization of Hawaii by the U.S., even though it was a sovereign state.  He supports colonization of lands inhabited by people he believes are less advanced than the colonizers, whatever the situation of the native people.  It is a point of view reflected in "manifest destiny".  It makes no sense arguing with someone that believes in "manifest destiny", it is futile.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, I don't think I addressed removal of people other than in the context of Rear Area Security.



montelatici said:


> I believe that there is a failure to communicate.  Rocco basically believes that because a native people did not have a sovereign state,


*(COMMENT)*

I'm saying that the successor government to the territory was NOT THE ARAB, but the Allied Powers.  




montelatici said:


> removing the native people to make room for a "deserving" foreign population is absolutely moral and legal. But, the issue of having or not having a sovereign state is just subterfuge on Rocco's part.


*(COMMENT)*

I said that the Arab set the conditions for removal.  They essentially attempted an insurrection after the State of Israel was declared.  They lost the bid to take by force the territory.



montelatici said:


> The fact is, Rocco would defend the colonization of Hawaii by the U.S., even though it was a sovereign state.  He supports colonization of lands inhabited by people he believes are less advanced than the colonizers, whatever the situation of the native people.  It is a point of view reflected in "manifest destiny".  It makes no sense arguing with someone that believes in "manifest destiny", it is futile.


*(COMMENT)*

I believe Hawaii was a concession in the outcome of the Spanish-American War; and was unilaterally annexed as part of the US.  Before the turn of the 20th Century, that is how business was done.  You cannot applied 21st Century thinking to evaluate a 19th Century political-economic decision.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Article 73 of the Charter applied equally well to the Jewish people 1948.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why all the smoke. You know that the sovereign rights of a people includes non self governing territories including occupation and colonialism.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no smoke.  You just want some easy answer.  There is no easy answer.

At every opportunity, the Arab Palestinian attempted to obstruct progress. Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, attempted to defy the Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly; and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the the establishment of the State of Israel.

You keep throwing up the colonialism issue --- and a war (several wars) were fought over that issue, and in each case, the outcome was consistent.  When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.

By 1923 the British had offered the opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establish of an institution through which the Arab Palestinian could be brought closer to self-governing institutions.  The Arab Palestinian then, as the Arab Palestinian does today, take the non-peaceful option and has yet to accomplish anything productive for the Arab People or the territory politically.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?


*(COMMENT)*

For the umpteenth time.  THERE WAS NO TRANSFER.  It was not a real estate purchase.  The territory and Mandate was in the hands of the UN (Trusteeship).

 There was a completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence; THEN there was a Declaration of Independence; THEN there was War of Independence initiated the external Arab Forces; THEN there was UN Membership admission.

For the Arab Palestinians --- nothing.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Article 73 of the Charter applied equally well to the Jewish people 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why all the smoke. You know that the sovereign rights of a people includes non self governing territories including occupation and colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no smoke.  You just want some easy answer.  There is no easy answer.
> 
> At every opportunity, the Arab Palestinian attempted to obstruct progress. Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, attempted to defy the Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly; and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> You keep throwing up the colonialism issue --- and a war (several wars) were fought over that issue, and in each case, the outcome was consistent.  When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.
> 
> By 1923 the British had offered the opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establish of an institution through which the Arab Palestinian could be brought closer to self-governing institutions.  The Arab Palestinian then, as the Arab Palestinian does today, take the non-peaceful option and has yet to accomplish anything productive for the Arab People or the territory politically.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the umpteenth time.  THERE WAS NO TRANSFER.  It was not a real estate purchase.  The territory and Mandate was in the hands of the UN (Trusteeship).
> 
> There was a completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence; THEN there was a Declaration of Independence; THEN there was War of Independence initiated the external Arab Forces; THEN there was UN Membership admission.
> 
> For the Arab Palestinians --- nothing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.​
It is illegal to acquire territory by war.

The Palestinians lost all of those wars? What were the terms of surrender? Where are the peace treaties ceding that land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Article 73 of the Charter applied equally well to the Jewish people 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why all the smoke. You know that the sovereign rights of a people includes non self governing territories including occupation and colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no smoke.  You just want some easy answer.  There is no easy answer.
> 
> At every opportunity, the Arab Palestinian attempted to obstruct progress. Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, attempted to defy the Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly; and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the the establishment of the State of Israel.
> 
> You keep throwing up the colonialism issue --- and a war (several wars) were fought over that issue, and in each case, the outcome was consistent.  When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.
> 
> By 1923 the British had offered the opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establish of an institution through which the Arab Palestinian could be brought closer to self-governing institutions.  The Arab Palestinian then, as the Arab Palestinian does today, take the non-peaceful option and has yet to accomplish anything productive for the Arab People or the territory politically.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the umpteenth time.  THERE WAS NO TRANSFER.  It was not a real estate purchase.  The territory and Mandate was in the hands of the UN (Trusteeship).
> 
> There was a completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence; THEN there was a Declaration of Independence; THEN there was War of Independence initiated the external Arab Forces; THEN there was UN Membership admission.
> 
> For the Arab Palestinians --- nothing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

By 1923 the British had offered the opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establish of an institution through which the Arab Palestinian could be brought closer to self-governing institutions.​
Only if they signed on to the colonial project.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, the restriction in the Charter does not say that at all.  Read it again..



P F Tinmore said:


> When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory by war.
> 
> The Palestinians lost all of those wars? What were the terms of surrender? Where are the peace treaties ceding that land?


(COMMENT)

That is a misinterpretation of what happened.

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation.  This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​This is use in concert with Article 51 of the Charter.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Memher of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.​In 1948, the Arab League attacked.  In 1967, the Arab were preparing for an attack, having as the UN Force to leave, and having closed the Straits.  In 1973, the Arab League attacked again.  In each case the Arab League was the aggressor.

It is NOT illegal to hold territory lost by the aggressor.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, the restriction in the Charter does not say that at all.  Read it again..
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.​
> It is illegal to acquire territory by war.
> 
> The Palestinians lost all of those wars? What were the terms of surrender? Where are the peace treaties ceding that land?
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> 
> That is a misinterpretation of what happened.
> 
> You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation.  This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​This is use in concert with Article 51 of the Charter.
> 
> Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Memher of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.​In 1948, the Arab League attacked.  In 1967, the Arab were preparing for an attack, having as the UN Force to leave, and having closed the Straits.  In 1973, the Arab League attacked again.  In each case the Arab League was the aggressor.
> 
> It is NOT illegal to hold territory lost by the aggressor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
So the foreign colonists were in Palestine defending themselves from the native's aggression? Who was using force against the territorial integrity of Palestine?

Rocco, you are a hoot.


----------



## Challenger

Boston1 said:


> You seem to be having trouble following the conversation. You'd asked where the Canaan valley was so I provided you with a map of Canaan.
> 
> Maybe this one from the 1690s will help you discover your error
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might take note that this one doesn't make any mention of a place called palestine.
> 
> So the question is, can you find the valley ? Or are you seriously suggesting there are no valleys in canaan ;--)
> 
> Its also of note that the Judaic people today inhabit the exact same area where their ancestors first developed from the more primitive stone age inhabitants something like 6500 years ago.
> 
> As I'm sure the rest of us can recall in your post # 384 you asked
> 
> Quote
> 
> "Canaan valley"? Where's that? The only major valley in the area is the Jordan valley
> 
> End Quote
> 
> But my favorite part was you followed that up in post # 389 with
> 
> Quote
> 
> Wow, what a spectacular display of historical ignorance.
> 
> End Quote
> 
> A statement I can wholeheartedly agree with, but of course not for the reasons you intended when you made that statement. Particularly if you are going to insist the Arab conquest didn't involve the slaughter or forced expulsion of the lands it conquered. The Judaic people have always been highly resistive to forced conversions..
> 
> In any case, maybe now that you know where Canaan is, you can point out the Canaan valley to us.



Canaan had a lot of valleys, which one would you like me to point to? The Jordan River has one valley and as far as I know it's always been called the Jordan River (or River Jordan if you want to nitpick).

The Arab conquest of Palestine and several other places, like Egypt was remarkably free of wholesale slaughter. The Rashidun Arab armies would engage and defeat the Roman and Persian field armies sent against them as at Yarmouk and Qadesiyah and the cities left without hope of relief mostly surrendered after a token resistance. The only records on both sides of "expulsions" were the Roman governing elites/nobles, whose estates and accompanying tenant farmers were promptly siezed by the Arab elites/nobles who became the new landed gentry. Life remained much the same for the average peasant under Muslim rule as it had been under Roman rule; they were free to practice their own religion as before and were largely autonomous so long as they paid their tributes/taxes to the new regime.

There is no record of forced conversions, (nor of anything called "Judaic" for that matter) the native population gradually converted over the next 100 years voluntarily, for the most part, as Muslims didn't have to pay taxes. Judaism in Palestine and most of the rest of the Levant had all but disappeared by the 13th century according to Moses ben Nahman Girondi, replaced by Islam.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> In 1948, the Arab League attacked. In 1967, the Arab were preparing for an attack, having as the UN Force to leave, and having closed the Straits. In 1973, the Arab League attacked again. In each case the Arab League was the aggressor.



Really, so why didn't the UN declare the Arab League to be the aggressor and condemn the aggression? You're talking bollocks, RoccoR. The Arab League tried to intervene in what was becoming a secession war in Palestine, the league was not condemned by the U.N. for agression. In 1967 the U.N. was deadlocked regarding who was the agressor due to Cold War politics, but it is now clear that Zionist Israel initiated hostilities when they knew there was no immediate threat from the UAR. In 1973, Egypt and Syria exercised their legal right to regain their own territory, again they were not condemned as aggressors.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, that is exactly correct.  P F Tinmore, please just jump right on down to the "SUMMATION" below.  I don't want you to get confused by the facts and claim "smoke inhalation."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> So the foreign colonists were in Palestine defending themselves from the native's aggression? Who was using force against the territorial integrity of Palestine?
> 
> Rocco, you are a hoot.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  Point One:
The Jewish People were invited and encouraged to Immigrate by the Palestine Government.  This Jewish Immigration was controlled _(and during the war, blocked as an Holocaust escape route by the British Mandatory) _under Article 4.  The purpose of the immigration was to bring the fulfillment of a Jewish National Home, established by the all the Jewish People willing to assist in that Allied Power objective.

*(PALESTINIAN FORCES NOT CONSIDERED EXTERNAL)*_*(Leadership was external.)*_

•  Point Two:
There were two Hostile Arab Palestinian activities that came together as an irregular force

∆  Army of the Holy War (HWA):  A composite paramilitary organization consisting of two sub-elements:

ø  HWA Jihad
ø  HWA Irregulars​∆  Arab Liberation Army (ALA):  The ALA was loosely task organized along two groups:

ø  Popular Resistance Fighters
ø  Foreign Fighters  

The HWA loss of its principle commander at the Battle of al-Qastal, had such a devastating impact on the ALA remnant, as to become an ineffective fighting force that never recovered.  The Arab Higher Committee had formed the All Palestine Government and attempted to reconstitute the HWA for its use.  This was seen by King Abdullah (Jordan) as a move to undermine the Kings authority as the Commander of all forces; and  erode secret political negotiations with Israel.  HM King Abdullah ordered Lieutenant General Sir John Glubb _(British Military Advisor to the Jordanian Army and Trainer)_ to demilitarize the HWA and disband it such that it could not be brought back into service.

The ALA, after a number of initial successes, essentially fought its last battle against Israeli Carmeli Brigade.  While the ALA mounted a formidable defense and defeated the Carmeli Brigade counter attack, the ALA (believing it was about to the surrounded) withdrew and retired north across the Lebanese Border; never to enter the War afterwards. ​Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War.  While they both answered to HM King Abdullah, they were the only operational elements of Palestinian origin.  Thus could be considered indigenous or _(non-external influences)_.

However, the introduction of the Arab League Forces cannot be considered anything other than foreign influences.  Those forces included:



​At the time of the Armistice (1949), there were no active Palestinians on the Battlefield.  The Jordanians established a military occupation over the West Bank and the Egyptian established a military occupation over the Gaza Strip, and the Lebanese and Syrian were pushed back to their point of embarkation.

*(SUMMATION)*

At the time of the Armistice, there were NO PALESTINIANS FORCES defending any space on the battlefield. 

There was NO INVASION OF PALESTINE.  From 1918 *(Armistice of Mudros)* until Israeli Independence (1948) and through to the establishment of the Occupied Territories *(Armistice 1949)*, the Jewish People had official recognition in the territory subject to the Mandate and transferred to the Trusteeship.  There was no violation of sovereign territory on the Part of the Jewish Immigrants _(before self-determination and Independence)_ OR on the Part of the Israeli's _(after Independence from the successor government)_.

The only armed forces to cross internationally recognized borders into the Palestine Trusteeship and Israel were the Arab League Forces listed in the box above.  No Israeli force cross any internationally recognized borders to any Arab League Nation.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, that is exactly correct.  P F Tinmore, please just jump right on down to the "SUMMATION" below.  I don't want you to get confused by the facts and claim "smoke inhalation."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> So the foreign colonists were in Palestine defending themselves from the native's aggression? Who was using force against the territorial integrity of Palestine?
> 
> Rocco, you are a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Point One:
> The Jewish People were invited and encouraged to Immigrate by the Palestine Government.  This Jewish Immigration was controlled _(and during the war, blocked as an Holocaust escape route by the British Mandatory) _under Article 4.  The purpose of the immigration was to bring the fulfillment of a Jewish National Home, established by the all the Jewish People willing to assist in that Allied Power objective.
> 
> *(PALESTINIAN FORCES NOT CONSIDERED EXTERNAL)*_*(Leadership was external.)*_
> 
> •  Point Two:
> There were two Hostile Arab Palestinian activities that came together as an irregular force
> ∆  Army of the Holy War (HWA):  A composite paramilitary organization consisting of two sub-elements:
> 
> ø  HWA Jihad
> ø  HWA Irregulars​∆  Arab Liberation Army (ALA):  The ALA was loosely task organized along two groups:
> 
> ø  Popular Resistance Fighters
> ø  Foreign Fighters
> 
> The HWA loss of its principle commander at the Battle of al-Qastal, had such a devastating impact on the ALA remnant, as to become an ineffective fighting force that never recovered.  The Arab Higher Committee had formed the All Palestine Government and attempted to reconstitute the HWA for its use.  This was seen by King Abdullah (Jordan) as a move to undermine the Kings authority as the Commander of all forces; and  erode secret political negotiations with Israel.  HM King Abdullah ordered Lieutenant General Sir John Glubb _(British Military Advisor to the Jordanian Army and Trainer)_ to demilitarize the HWA and disband it such that it could not be brought back into service.
> 
> The ALA, after a number of initial successes, essentially fought its last battle against Israeli Carmeli Brigade.  While the ALA mounted a formidable defense and defeated the Carmeli Brigade counter attack, the ALA (believing it was about to the surrounded) withdrew and retired north across the Lebanese Border; never to enter the War afterwards.​Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War.  While they both answered to HM King Abdullah, they were the only operational elements of Palestinian origin.  Thus could be considered indigenous or _(non-external influences)_.
> 
> However, the introduction of the Arab League Forces cannot be considered anything other than foreign influences.  Those forces included:
> 
> View attachment 61110​At the time of the Armistice (1949), there were no active Palestinians on the Battlefield.  The Jordanians established a military occupation over the West Bank and the Egyptian established a military occupation over the Gaza Strip, and the Lebanese and Syrian were pushed back to their point of embarkation.
> 
> *(SUMMATION)*
> 
> At the time of the Armistice, there were NO PALESTINIANS FORCES defending any space on the battlefield.
> 
> There was NO INVASION OF PALESTINE.  From 1918 *(Armistice of Mudros)* until Israeli Independence (1948) and through to the establishment of the Occupied Territories *(Armistice 1949)*, the Jewish People had official recognition in the territory subject to the Mandate and transferred to the Trusteeship.  There was no violation of sovereign territory on the Part of the Jewish Immigrants _(before self-determination and Independence)_ OR on the Part of the Israeli's _(after Independence from the successor government)_.
> 
> The only armed forces to cross internationally recognized borders into the Palestine Trusteeship and Israel were the Arab League Forces listed in the box above.  No Israeli force cross any internationally recognized borders to any Arab League Nation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...

However, the introduction of the Arab League Forces cannot be considered anything other than foreign influences.​
Indeed, but not external interference. They went into Palestine to defend Palestine. Well, Jordan was a different story.

No Israeli force cross any internationally recognized borders to any Arab League Nation.​
But Israeli forces were created and controlled by foreigners. The government of Israel was established by foreigners in complete disregard of the inhabitants.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, that is exactly correct.  P F Tinmore, please just jump right on down to the "SUMMATION" below.  I don't want you to get confused by the facts and claim "smoke inhalation."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> So the foreign colonists were in Palestine defending themselves from the native's aggression? Who was using force against the territorial integrity of Palestine?
> 
> Rocco, you are a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Point One:
> The Jewish People were invited and encouraged to Immigrate by the Palestine Government.  This Jewish Immigration was controlled _(and during the war, blocked as an Holocaust escape route by the British Mandatory) _under Article 4.  The purpose of the immigration was to bring the fulfillment of a Jewish National Home, established by the all the Jewish People willing to assist in that Allied Power objective.
> 
> *(PALESTINIAN FORCES NOT CONSIDERED EXTERNAL)*_*(Leadership was external.)*_
> 
> •  Point Two:
> There were two Hostile Arab Palestinian activities that came together as an irregular force
> ∆  Army of the Holy War (HWA):  A composite paramilitary organization consisting of two sub-elements:
> 
> ø  HWA Jihad
> ø  HWA Irregulars​∆  Arab Liberation Army (ALA):  The ALA was loosely task organized along two groups:
> 
> ø  Popular Resistance Fighters
> ø  Foreign Fighters
> 
> The HWA loss of its principle commander at the Battle of al-Qastal, had such a devastating impact on the ALA remnant, as to become an ineffective fighting force that never recovered.  The Arab Higher Committee had formed the All Palestine Government and attempted to reconstitute the HWA for its use.  This was seen by King Abdullah (Jordan) as a move to undermine the Kings authority as the Commander of all forces; and  erode secret political negotiations with Israel.  HM King Abdullah ordered Lieutenant General Sir John Glubb _(British Military Advisor to the Jordanian Army and Trainer)_ to demilitarize the HWA and disband it such that it could not be brought back into service.
> 
> The ALA, after a number of initial successes, essentially fought its last battle against Israeli Carmeli Brigade.  While the ALA mounted a formidable defense and defeated the Carmeli Brigade counter attack, the ALA (believing it was about to the surrounded) withdrew and retired north across the Lebanese Border; never to enter the War afterwards.​Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War.  While they both answered to HM King Abdullah, they were the only operational elements of Palestinian origin.  Thus could be considered indigenous or _(non-external influences)_.
> 
> However, the introduction of the Arab League Forces cannot be considered anything other than foreign influences.  Those forces included:
> 
> View attachment 61110​At the time of the Armistice (1949), there were no active Palestinians on the Battlefield.  The Jordanians established a military occupation over the West Bank and the Egyptian established a military occupation over the Gaza Strip, and the Lebanese and Syrian were pushed back to their point of embarkation.
> 
> *(SUMMATION)*
> 
> At the time of the Armistice, there were NO PALESTINIANS FORCES defending any space on the battlefield.
> 
> There was NO INVASION OF PALESTINE.  From 1918 *(Armistice of Mudros)* until Israeli Independence (1948) and through to the establishment of the Occupied Territories *(Armistice 1949)*, the Jewish People had official recognition in the territory subject to the Mandate and transferred to the Trusteeship.  There was no violation of sovereign territory on the Part of the Jewish Immigrants _(before self-determination and Independence)_ OR on the Part of the Israeli's _(after Independence from the successor government)_.
> 
> The only armed forces to cross internationally recognized borders into the Palestine Trusteeship and Israel were the Arab League Forces listed in the box above.  No Israeli force cross any internationally recognized borders to any Arab League Nation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...

Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War.​
I think it was Israel who coined the term civil war that is not true. A civil war would be between two groups of Palestinians

The settlers had no intent on being a part of Palestine. They did not identify themselves as Palestinians.The Palestinians did not accept them as Palestinians. They lived separate lives from Palestinians in their own settlements.

The war was between the Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm not sure whether we read from the same books or not.  I thought we covered this once, but I may be wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> I think it was Israel who coined the term civil war that is not true. A civil war would be between two groups of Palestinians
> 
> The settlers had no intent on being a part of Palestine. They did not identify themselves as Palestinians.The Palestinians did not accept them as Palestinians. They lived separate lives from Palestinians in their own settlements.
> 
> The war was between the Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

*There are a complex number of Different types of non-international armed conflicts (the general category in which Civil Wars fall).  *

A "Civil War" is a generalized layman's term.  It cannot be used in the technical and propaganda form in which you just used it.  I think you need to go back to the basics:

*Non-international armed conflict*

*26-03-2012 Book Chapter*
You will no doubt note that when the ICRC wrote this chapter,  one of the examples it used were:

The Israeli/Lebanon/Hezbollah Conflict of 2006 which is definitionally placed in the NIAC Problems of qualifications group.
Even more confusing, you will see that there are some which were categorized as  "foreign intervention not directed against government forces."  It was the one they were studying at the time, and the one in which the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs was dealing with, in the shadow of frivolous allegations made by the Palestinians.

Israel Operation Cast Lead 2008/2009
Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah, Conflict in 2006
In the practical sense, a Civil War has less to do with your preoccupation indigenous or long term inhabitance and more to do with citizenship, nationality and the intention of the party that initiated the conflict.  In the case of the US Civil War, the parties to the conflict were of the same citizenship and from within the same general territory.  It is all debatable at the layman's level.  For the purpose of Customary and IHL, the 1946-1948 outbreak of hostilities would be NIAC.

Just a Thought - throwing it out there.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now you are just playing with the vocabulary.



P F Tinmore said:


> But Israeli forces were created and controlled by foreigners. The government of Israel was established by foreigners in complete disregard of the inhabitants.​


*(COMMENT)*

The Israeli Forces were not under foreign control.
The ALA and HWA were under Jordanian control.
Only the members of the ALA and HWA were Palestinian Citizens under the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Order of 1925.  None of the Arab League Armies crossing the line of departure into the territory formerly under the Mandate held Palestinian Citizenship; fighting under a different flag and country command.

Whether you want to call it foreign or external interference, the fact is, it was a clear violation of Chapter I, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now you are just playing with the vocabulary.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Israeli forces were created and controlled by foreigners. The government of Israel was established by foreigners in complete disregard of the inhabitants.​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israeli Forces were not under foreign control.
> The ALA and HWA were under Jordanian control.
> Only the members of the ALA and HWA were Palestinian Citizens under the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Order of 1925.  None of the Arab League Armies crossing the line of departure into the territory formerly under the Mandate held Palestinian Citizenship; fighting under a different flag and country command.
> 
> Whether you want to call it foreign or external interference, the fact is, it was a clear violation of Chapter I, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...

Whether you want to call it foreign or external interference, the fact is, it was a clear violation of Chapter I, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.​
How so?

The Israeli Forces were not under foreign control.​
The entire colonial project was that of the foreign WZO.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh wow!  I say again:  Oh wOw!



P F Tinmore said:


> The entire colonial project was that of the foreign WZO.


*(COMMENT)*

The World Zionist Organization (WZO) was neither a foreign government or government arm.  It was a consensus building foundation and a logistics organizer.  

It had absolutely nothing to do with the Politics behind the decisions necessary to build a nation.

Once the WZO gave recognition to the Jewish Agency, it took a backseat to the Jewish Agency.  However, during the conflicts between 1946 and 1949, even the Jewish Agency took a back seat to the Provisional Government.

You bandy that "colonial project" terminology around like it is some kind of smoking gun.  It is not.  Even the Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention was a need for consensus and organization.

The WZO had absolutely nothing to do with task organization during the Civil War and Israeli War of Independence.  It had virtually nothing to do with Jewish Security matters from 1918 to 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh wow!  I say again:  Oh wOw!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire colonial project was that of the foreign WZO.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The World Zionist Organization (WZO) was neither a foreign government or government arm.  It was a consensus building foundation and a logistics organizer.
> 
> It had absolutely nothing to do with the Politics behind the decisions necessary to build a nation.
> 
> Once the WZO gave recognition to the Jewish Agency, it took a backseat to the Jewish Agency.  However, during the conflicts between 1946 and 1949, even the Jewish Agency took a back seat to the Provisional Government.
> 
> You bandy that "colonial project" terminology around like it is some kind of smoking gun.  It is not.  Even the Allied Powers at the San Remo Convention was a need for consensus and organization.
> 
> The WZO had absolutely nothing to do with task organization during the Civil War and Israeli War of Independence.  It had virtually nothing to do with Jewish Security matters from 1918 to 1948.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Similarly, a number of Jewish organizations such as the *Colonisation Department of the Zionist Organization,* financed by the Keren ha-Yesod, were actively engaged in acquisition of land both for individual immigrant families as well as for the Yishuv or Jewish settlements. Several of these organizations had been operating since the nineteenth century, notably the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA)

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0​

BTW, the foreign Jewish Agency was created in Zurich by the foreign WZO.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Don't be ridiculous.  Colonization is just another work for a coordinated immigration program.  It fits hand in glove to the encouraged immigration that was Mandated.



P F Tinmore said:


> Similarly, a number of Jewish organizations such as the *Colonisation Department of the Zionist Organization,* financed by the Keren ha-Yesod, were actively engaged in acquisition of land both for individual immigrant families as well as for the Yishuv or Jewish settlements. Several of these organizations had been operating since the nineteenth century, notably the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA)
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0​BTW, the foreign Jewish Agency was created in Zurich by the foreign WZO.


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish Agency international body representing the World Zionist Organization, created in 1929 by Chaim Weizmann, with headquarters in Jerusalem. Its purpose is to assist and encourage Jews worldwide to help develop and settle Israel.  However is needs were invisioned by the Allied Power as early as 1920, in San Remo, when the concept was incorporated into the agreement.  The Allied Powers, being conservative, stipulated that the "Zionist Organization" must first accredit the Jewish Agency.  The year the WZO, lacking a permanent Headquarters, was meeting in Zurich that year (1929).   But the concept was though of a decade before. 

[FONT=Asap, sans-serif]If you want to attach some sinister motive to either proper planning and organization for the encourage immigration to  Palestine --- go right ahead.

But don't dish-out the misinformation that the WZO or the JA had anything to do with some armed invasion strategy by foreign military forces.  Or suggest by innuendo that Haganah was some sort of foreign controlled paramilitary.  It is simply not true.

And if you are going to suggest that the WZO or JA was some sort of covert colonization program, established by some Nation's Colonial Foreign Office, for the purpose of exploitation and expansionist of the territory for a political power -- then don't make us guess.  Connect the dots for us.

What I see is the Allied Powers did -- was attempt to establish a safe haven for the Jewish people.  Setting up a place where they can protect themselves form the majority population that were most likely to attempt the annihilation of the Jewish Culture; under the color of law that they manipulate.  [/FONT]

Most respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Colonization is just another work for a coordinated immigration program.  It fits hand in glove to the encouraged immigration that was Mandated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similarly, a number of Jewish organizations such as the *Colonisation Department of the Zionist Organization,* financed by the Keren ha-Yesod, were actively engaged in acquisition of land both for individual immigrant families as well as for the Yishuv or Jewish settlements. Several of these organizations had been operating since the nineteenth century, notably the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA)
> The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)​BTW, the foreign Jewish Agency was created in Zurich by the foreign WZO.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish Agency international body representing the World Zionist Organization, created in 1929 by Chaim Weizmann, with headquarters in Jerusalem. Its purpose is to assist and encourage Jews worldwide to help develop and settle Israel.  However is needs were invisioned by the Allied Power as early as 1920, in San Remo, when the concept was incorporated into the agreement.  The Allied Powers, being conservative, stipulated that the "Zionist Organization" must first accredit the Jewish Agency.  The year the WZO, lacking a permanent Headquarters, was meeting in Zurich that year (1929).   But the concept was though of a decade before.
> 
> [FONT=Asap, sans-serif]If you want to attach some sinister motive to either proper planning and organization for the encourage immigration to  Palestine --- go right ahead.
> 
> But don't dish-out the misinformation that the WZO or the JA had anything to do with some armed invasion strategy by foreign military forces.  Or suggest by innuendo that Haganah was some sort of foreign controlled paramilitary.  It is simply not true.
> 
> And if you are going to suggest that the WZO or JA was some sort of covert colonization program, established by some Nation's Colonial Foreign Office, for the purpose of exploitation and expansionist of the territory for a political power -- then don't make us guess.  Connect the dots for us.
> 
> What I see is the Allied Powers did -- was attempt to establish a safe haven for the Jewish people.  Setting up a place where they can protect themselves form the majority population that were most likely to attempt the annihilation of the Jewish Culture; under the color of law that they manipulate.  [/FONT]
> 
> Most respectfully,
> 
> R
Click to expand...

And if you are going to suggest that the WZO or JA was some sort of covert colonization program, established by some Nation's Colonial Foreign Office, for the purpose of exploitation and expansionist of the territory for a political power -- then don't make us guess.  Connect the dots for us.​
The King-Crane Commission had reported that Jewish colonists were planning a radical transformation of Palestine:


 "The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase".

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0

There was nothing covert about it. They spoke openly about their colonial project.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Colonization is just another work for a coordinated immigration program.  It fits hand in glove to the encouraged immigration that was Mandated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similarly, a number of Jewish organizations such as the *Colonisation Department of the Zionist Organization,* financed by the Keren ha-Yesod, were actively engaged in acquisition of land both for individual immigrant families as well as for the Yishuv or Jewish settlements. Several of these organizations had been operating since the nineteenth century, notably the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA)
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0​BTW, the foreign Jewish Agency was created in Zurich by the foreign WZO.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish Agency international body representing the World Zionist Organization, created in 1929 by Chaim Weizmann, with headquarters in Jerusalem. Its purpose is to assist and encourage Jews worldwide to help develop and settle Israel.  However is needs were invisioned by the Allied Power as early as 1920, in San Remo, when the concept was incorporated into the agreement.  The Allied Powers, being conservative, stipulated that the "Zionist Organization" must first accredit the Jewish Agency.  The year the WZO, lacking a permanent Headquarters, was meeting in Zurich that year (1929).   But the concept was though of a decade before.
> 
> [FONT=Asap, sans-serif]If you want to attach some sinister motive to either proper planning and organization for the encourage immigration to  Palestine --- go right ahead.
> 
> But don't dish-out the misinformation that the WZO or the JA had anything to do with some armed invasion strategy by foreign military forces.  Or suggest by innuendo that Haganah was some sort of foreign controlled paramilitary.  It is simply not true.
> 
> And if you are going to suggest that the WZO or JA was some sort of covert colonization program, established by some Nation's Colonial Foreign Office, for the purpose of exploitation and expansionist of the territory for a political power -- then don't make us guess.  Connect the dots for us.
> 
> What I see is the Allied Powers did -- was attempt to establish a safe haven for the Jewish people.  Setting up a place where they can protect themselves form the majority population that were most likely to attempt the annihilation of the Jewish Culture; under the color of law that they manipulate.  [/FONT]
> 
> Most respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It wasn't a covert colonization program.  It was an overt Zionist colonization program.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  P F Tinmore, et al,

You two are trying to make it sound like the Jewish were planning something sinister; something illegal!  This is the wolf cry...



P F Tinmore said:


> There was nothing covert about it. They spoke openly about their colonial project.





montelatici said:


> It wasn't a covert colonization program.  It was an overt Zionist colonization program.


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish People you are talking about, are not and were not, involved in anything improper or illegal; or unsanctioned.

It was all done at the encouragement of the Council of the League of Nations and the Allied Powers.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You two are trying to make it sound like the Jewish were planning something sinister; something illegal!  This is the wolf cry...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing covert about it. They spoke openly about their colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a covert colonization program.  It was an overt Zionist colonization program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish People you are talking about, are not and were not, involved in anything improper or illegal; or unsanctioned.
> 
> It was all done at the encouragement of the Council of the League of Nations and the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Hogwash, it was a premeditated plan to take over Palestine. That was their intent. They openly said that they were colonizing Palestine. That is what they did.

You keep posting this:

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
But you do not believe that applies to lesser people.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Is this where I'm suppose to laugh?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You two are trying to make it sound like the Jewish were planning something sinister; something illegal!  This is the wolf cry...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing covert about it. They spoke openly about their colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a covert colonization program.  It was an overt Zionist colonization program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish People you are talking about, are not and were not, involved in anything improper or illegal; or unsanctioned.
> 
> It was all done at the encouragement of the Council of the League of Nations and the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash, it was a premeditated plan to take over Palestine. That was their intent. They openly said that they were colonizing Palestine. That is what they did.
> 
> You keep posting this:
> 
> You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
> But you do not believe that applies to lesser people.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Throughout history, all kinds of people invested in the future value of concepts and ideals.  Before the end of the 19th Century, all manner of influential people believed that their would be a place for the Jewish People somewhere in the region; even back then.  So, yes...  who cares what your call it?  If you want to call it the Jewish Colony, go ahead.  At the end of the day, and the 19th Century, it was thought of as a Jewish National Home.

The People of the United States and new immigrants were moving west in the direction of California.  Many in huge wagon trains, building railroads, and caravans.   You can call them, if you like, colonist.  But its not going to sound right.  Because it is an intention to create something bigger then the sum of its parts; just has the Jewish National Home was something bigger then anything the Arabs had ever put together for 3000 years, and is still more enormous in terms of human development than anything the Arab have put together since the Radicalized Islamics started running free.

Just as some people who saw the potential for in California, there were people who saw potential for the Middle East.  And there were still others that saw the potential in the Middle East and put teams together to begin building a nation.

Premeditation! ---  Again an attempt to use semantics in language to twist the positive intent of planned immigration efforts.   That word (premeditation) more often used in law enforcement, is merely an attempt to apply criminal language to a human developmental process that was framed by the Allied Powers, adopted by the Council to the League of Nations, and put in effect by the Jewish Immigrants.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Is this where I'm suppose to laugh?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You two are trying to make it sound like the Jewish were planning something sinister; something illegal!  This is the wolf cry...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing covert about it. They spoke openly about their colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a covert colonization program.  It was an overt Zionist colonization program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish People you are talking about, are not and were not, involved in anything improper or illegal; or unsanctioned.
> 
> It was all done at the encouragement of the Council of the League of Nations and the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash, it was a premeditated plan to take over Palestine. That was their intent. They openly said that they were colonizing Palestine. That is what they did.
> 
> You keep posting this:
> 
> You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
> But you do not believe that applies to lesser people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Throughout history, all kinds of people invested in the future value of concepts and ideals.  Before the end of the 19th Century, all manner of influential people believed that their would be a place for the Jewish People somewhere in the region; even back then.  So, yes...  who cares what your call it?  If you want to call it the Jewish Colony, go ahead.  At the end of the day, and the 19th Century, it was thought of as a Jewish National Home.
> 
> The People of the United States and new immigrants were moving west in the direction of California.  Many in huge wagon trains, building railroads, and caravans.   You can call them, if you like, colonist.  But its not going to sound right.  Because it is an intention to create something bigger then the sum of its parts; just has the Jewish National Home was something bigger then anything the Arabs had ever put together for 3000 years, and is still more enormous in terms of human development than anything the Arab have put together since the Radicalized Islamics started running free.
> 
> Just as some people who saw the potential for in California, there were people who saw potential for the Middle East.  And there were still others that saw the potential in the Middle East and put teams together to begin building a nation.
> 
> Premeditation! ---  Again an attempt to use semantics in language to twist the positive intent of planned immigration efforts.   That word (premeditation) more often used in law enforcement, is merely an attempt to apply criminal language to a human developmental process that was framed by the Allied Powers, adopted by the Council to the League of Nations, and put in effect by the Jewish Immigrants.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So it is OK to kick the lesser people out of their land?

That is so fucking racist.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't believe I've made any claim against people of other races, or given cause to assume that I believe that a particular race is superior to another.



P F Tinmore said:


> So it is OK to kick the lesser people out of their land?
> 
> That is so fucking racist.


*(COMMENT)*

Remember, these are not lesser people because they have no sovereign history.  They do have a history of a sovereign power over them.   And they have always need someone to watch over them.  They have a very poor record of human development; and have never really demonstrated that they could stand on their own.  The Arab Palestinians have yet to have a peace transition in government since 1988 and the Declaration of Independence.  They have not made much progress in managing the 2400 sq mi they clain to have.  And they cannot even maintain a civilized manner for the governance over Jerusalem. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## jillian

Coyote said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because threads in those forums don't get consistently derailed like threads in IP do.  You can start with any topic and it's almost a guarantee that within a few pages the the thread is derailed into the history of the mandate, who has a right to be there, who is an invader/squatter, who is indiginous yada yada yada.  This seems like one solution, that avoids having to just delete posts and gives a consistent place to discuss this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no. my point is if you ask those questions abut israel, you need to ask the same questions about the countries i mentioned since they were "formed" the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree...and if people want to they can - I don't care    We are just tired of the constant derailing of threads in IP.
Click to expand...


but they DON'T want to... and you foster the anti-Semite spew.


----------



## Coyote

jillian said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because threads in those forums don't get consistently derailed like threads in IP do.  You can start with any topic and it's almost a guarantee that within a few pages the the thread is derailed into the history of the mandate, who has a right to be there, who is an invader/squatter, who is indiginous yada yada yada.  This seems like one solution, that avoids having to just delete posts and gives a consistent place to discuss this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no. my point is if you ask those questions abut israel, you need to ask the same questions about the countries i mentioned since they were "formed" the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree...and if people want to they can - I don't care    We are just tired of the constant derailing of threads in IP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but they DON'T want to... and you foster the anti-Semite spew.
Click to expand...


No one wants to Jillian, including your side.  And even "anti-semite spew" as you put it, is free speech.  If you don't like it, put the speaker on ignore.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't expel 4.4 million people simply because you want to take their land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your premise is incorrect.
> 
> You are assuming it is "their land".
> 
> The area west of the Jordan has never been adjudicated as anyones land beyond the British mandate period. In which case it reverts to sovereign control. The Jordanians abandoned the area and IMHO illegally stripped its inhabitants of Jordanian citizenship. Israel controls the area which places it under the auspices of the Israeli courts by virtue of the Geneva conventions.
> 
> Under those conventions any combatants, including those who assist combatants or are suspected of assisting or participating in acts agains the state, forfeit their protected persons status. In which case Israel can detain them as prisoners of war.
> 
> Prisoners of war must be repatriated to their countries of origin. In which case Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Egypt are the responsible parties.
> 
> I think you are assuming the Arabs remaining within Israeli controlled areas are all civilians. The hard reality is anyone committing acts against the state in war time are combatants and forfeit their protected persons status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They originated where they are.  There is no country of "origin" to "repatriot" them to.  That's just another name for ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its an issue of legalities. What is the last legal status of nationality of the Arabs living in the mandated area west of the Jordan. The mandate for palestine did contain a citizenship order, however, obviously that that was a requirement of the mandate and was irrespective of the subsequent divisions of the mandated area. Either way the order expired and the two sister nations Jordan and Israel now have sovereign control of who they are willing to become citizens ?
> 
> Maybe Rocco will chime in on that one.
> 
> From what I can see they were illegally stripped of their Jordanian citizenship and therefor, Jordan bears the greatest responsibility.
> 
> It doesn't really matter Israel is only legally responsible for turning them over to a neutral third party and the Geneva conventions names the IRC as the default third party.
> 
> I don't see anything in the Geneva conventions that prohibits repatriation of prisoners of war. Nor do I see any ethnic restrictions within Israel's ability to declare who is a hostile combatant. So your cries of ethnic cleansing don't appear to have any merit give the criteria set forth within the Geneva conventions.
> 
> In the end not one inch of land should be awarded to any hostiles who under international law can be declared prisoners of war and repatriated to their countries of origin. Since their is no country of palestine, they palestine cannot be considered a country of origin and one of the waring signatories of the original declaration of war against Israel becomes responsible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate and the LoN enacted an International law that granted the Jews the land that is now know as the west bank, gaza and Golan heights. The UN illegally partitioned this land into a possible arab muslim state, once they realised they amended the UN charter to once again grant the Jews the above land. The pro Palestinians/anti Jews always balk when these INTERNATIONAL LAWS are pointed out and deflect away from the reality because they know they have no answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What international "law"?  My understanding is there was no force of law there.  Maybe we should take this up in the Mandate thread?
Click to expand...






 This international law




The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


*The Council of the League of Nations:*
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers,* in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

*Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country*; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> Coyote, Phoenall,  et al,  _*(Just a POINT of Clarification!)*_
> 
> Don't get twisted up here.  This is a mistake a lot of people make.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate and the LoN enacted an International law that granted the Jews the land that is now know as the west bank, gaza and Golan heights. The UN illegally partitioned this land into a possible arab muslim state, once they realised they amended the UN charter to once again grant the Jews the above land. The pro Palestinians/anti Jews always balk when these INTERNATIONAL LAWS are pointed out and deflect away from the reality because they know they have no answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What international "law"?  My understanding is there was no force of law there.  Maybe we should take this up in the Mandate thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There was no amendment of the Charter to allow anything of the sort.
> 
> The UN did not illegally partition anything.  The UN made an offer to for the Arabs and the Jews based on the logic and recommendations put forth by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP).
> 
> The Mandate is a "Directive" from the "League of Nations" to the "Assigned Mandatory" as determined by the "Allied Powers" --- with the "Allied Powers" having decided the context of the Mandate.  You will notice that the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine says (over and over again) the phrase:  "Whereas the Principle Allied Powers have agreed," --- and not the Council of the League of Nations.  Now look at this last bit of language:
> 
> "Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
> 
> Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:​
> The Allied Powers set-up the Mandate and had it approved by the Council.   The Mandatory exercises the authority on behalf of the "Council."
> 
> The Mandate slipped into the UN Trusteeship Program in April 1946 *(in accordance with Article 28 of the Mandate and Article 77 of the Charter)*.  But the terms stayed the same.  If the Administrator *(the successor government to the UK) *wants to do something outside that Mandate as was NOT previously agreed to by the League Membership (Trustee Programs as the successor), Then it shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations (the UN General Assembly as the successor body).
> 
> •  References:
> 
> Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Mandate Preamble.
> Articles 28 of the Mandate
> Chapter XII of the UN Charter
> In November 1947, the UN General Assembly *(as the successor body to the Council)* voted on and approved the "partition plan" in the form of Resolution 181(II).   All in accordance with the agreed upon procedures involving the Allied Powers, and the Council as passed on to the Mandatory.  The UN General Assembly adoption of the 1947 Resolution fulfills the requirement within the Mandate (agreed upon by the parties) to "explicitly defined" by the body if it was not previously agreed to.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...







 This says otherwise




General Assembly Resolutions 4th Session


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't both take the stand that "they've lived there for ages" and ignore that the PREVIOUS owner and admin of that land was Jordan. Merely living on the land doesn't give you civil rights, legal process or citizenship of any nation.. That's a MUTUAL decision..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At one time the administrator was Britain - would that have that make them British?  Would they have been expelled to their British "homeland" then?
> 
> It may be a mutual decision but in a modern world it is also a humanitarian decision and simply flicking your hand and talking about mass expulsions is not a mutual decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP plan is NOT to expel them to Jordan* -- but keep them on the same land they've living on for over 50 years. WITH the eventual transition of that land to an autonomous Palestine. Jordan's payout would be to become their gateway to growth and commerce.. Essentially bootstrapping BOTH the economies of Jordan AND "palestine".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree - I got side tracked. Just not sure how beneficial that would be to Jordan and whether Jordan could manage security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the help of Arab partners, Israel MIGHT consider moving some of their settlements as they did in Gaza. But WITHOUT partners to help the Palestinians build a govt/nation --- they would be IDIOTS to fall for that trip again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree - but, settlements are a part of the problem as to why there has been no resolution.
Click to expand...








 NO as this was made clear in the mandate documents. Which is where many people fall foul of the arab interpretations. Britain was a caretaker government put in place to look after the day to day running of Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine until they were able to stand on their own feet. They were also there to act as a security force in case of any insurrection or civil disturbance. They inhabitants were granted citizenship of Palestine under the control and protection of Britain, this did not make it a nation or the inhabitants British.

 The problems arise when you look at the inhabitants actual citizenship before the 1948 declaration of independence, and where they considered themselves to be citizens of. Many declared to be Syrian which means that they should be deported to Syria if they are sentenced for any criminal act. The law is simple and clear on this matter, which is why so many illegal immigrants destroy their papers as soon as they arrive at their destination. No proof of citizenship and they cant be deported.



 The settlements were part of an agreement that the Palestinians now want to renege on because they did not foresee them spreading as they have done. The only way to do this would be to have them declared illegal and have the UN enforce this decision, that will never happen while the Oslo accords are still in existence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't believe I've made any claim against people of other races, or given cause to assume that I believe that a particular race is superior to another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is OK to kick the lesser people out of their land?
> 
> That is so fucking racist.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, these are not lesser people because they have no sovereign history.  They do have a history of a sovereign power over them.   And they have always need someone to watch over them.  They have a very poor record of human development; and have never really demonstrated that they could stand on their own.  The Arab Palestinians have yet to have a peace transition in government since 1988 and the Declaration of Independence.  They have not made much progress in managing the 2400 sq mi they clain to have.  And they cannot even maintain a civilized manner for the governance over Jerusalem.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

They have a very poor record of human development; and have never really demonstrated that they could stand on their own.​
Another racist remark.

How can they develop when their means of production, both agricultural and industrial, have been stolen, bombed, bulldozed, and blockaded. Their cultural and educational institution are severely restricted in Gaza and the West Bank.

Could you elaborate please?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would expel 4.4 million civilians from the Occupied Territories?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> So where did you get that from?
> 
> I don't think I said that at all.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...you're right.  It's what I'm getting from Boston.  Apologies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Its what you are getting from yourself. What I said had nothing to do with civilians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get if from what you have said in multiple threads which is to expel them all to Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where they were supposed to go under the International laws of 1923. There was even provision in these laws for a forced move to arab Palestine it they did not want to live in Jewish Palestine peacefully and as full citizens. Even the UN stated that they could only stay/return if they gave an understanding that they would be prepared to act in a civilised manner and live peacefully with the Jews. Remind me again who it is that says they will never live in peace with the Jews, and why these laws have not been implemented in full ?
Click to expand...


What international laws?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is a matter of Record because, that is what it is --- a matter of record.

•  *Global 2015 Human Development Report - English*

It is what it is.  An objective view of reality without tampering.

Points to keep in mind as you read, they are  Palestinian view as expressed over time:

Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.  Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.​


P F Tinmore said:


> Another racist remark.
> 
> How can they develop when their means of production, both agricultural and industrial, have been stolen, bombed, bulldozed, and blockaded. Their cultural and educational institution are severely restricted in Gaza and the West Bank.
> 
> Could you elaborate please?


*(COMMENT)*

First, there is a subliminal message transmitted in this question.  It presupposes that the relationship between the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) if the facts on the ground had been different, that the relationship might have been cordial if the territory had not been occupied by the IDF in 1967.  And of course, there is absolutely no reason to consider this as whimsical possibility.

Second, the imbedded supposition is a latent idea that, had the IDF not taken control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordanian authority and Egyptian authorities (respectively) in 1967 that somehow the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) would have emerged differently from the fate of all the other Arab nations states in the Immediate vicinity.  And again, there is no reason to believe that the HoAP would have developed economically, commercially, scientifically or even socially to an advance position any more than any of the adjacent Arab States. 

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​
The reason they call it a "Belligerent Occupation" with respect to the oPt is because the Arab Palestinians opened hostilities with the State of Israel in 1948 with the interventionist assistance of the combined Arab League Force; and never attempted to establish a peaceful arrangement through the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  There was no closer on the mater with respect to the HoAP --- even by the Arab League.  In 1948 the Arab Palestinians vowed that they would never recognize the validity of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and that of the Partition proposed and adopted.  The HoAP made a "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."

Before you can even consider the possibility of a more theoretical alternative, one has to make a leap beyond the Palestinian fascination with conflict, martyrdom, and the generational inheritance of murder and mayhem, --- you have to conceive of there being a very different kind of Palestinian.  You have to be able to imagine --- conceive of a Palestinian that does not spend their time undermining a prosperous nation --- but a Palestinian that reaches to make the best of what they have in a peaceful manner.  The morph from the terrorist and jihadist demon that that is the Palestinian to the plans, designs, and oversees the construction of a new nation; the architect of a new way. 

We would then have to see the Palestinian turn the possibility into a reality; one that has been recast and rebuild that which we call the Arab Palestinian, into a alternative national identity.  No one can do it for them.  The must want to do it.  Today, they cast the next generation to hate that which is Jewish.  Just as they ruined the last generation to to act the way that they do; believing that they have some special right to something they never worked for and never had.  The whole culture needs cleansed.

The idea that the Palestinians could have matched Israel, left unrestrained, it fantasy.  The would have been luck to achieve the status of a chaotic neighbor like Syrian.  Given the best of all conditions, there is no reason they could have achieved a Human Development Level for the best of the entire Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> It is a matter of Record because, that is what it is --- a matter of record.
> 
> •  *Global 2015 Human Development Report - English*
> 
> It is what it is.  An objective view of reality without tampering.
> 
> Points to keep in mind as you read, they are  Palestinian view as expressed over time:
> 
> Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
> 
> There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.  Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
> 
> Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
> No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another racist remark.
> 
> How can they develop when their means of production, both agricultural and industrial, have been stolen, bombed, bulldozed, and blockaded. Their cultural and educational institution are severely restricted in Gaza and the West Bank.
> 
> Could you elaborate please?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, there is a subliminal message transmitted in this question.  It presupposes that the relationship between the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) if the facts on the ground had been different, that the relationship might have been cordial if the territory had not been occupied by the IDF in 1967.  And of course, there is absolutely no reason to consider this as whimsical possibility.
> 
> Second, the imbedded supposition is a latent idea that, had the IDF not taken control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordanian authority and Egyptian authorities (respectively) in 1967 that somehow the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) would have emerged differently from the fate of all the other Arab nations states in the Immediate vicinity.  And again, there is no reason to believe that the HoAP would have developed economically, commercially, scientifically or even socially to an advance position any more than any of the adjacent Arab States.
> 
> *---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​
> The reason they call it a "Belligerent Occupation" with respect to the oPt is because the Arab Palestinians opened hostilities with the State of Israel in 1948 with the interventionist assistance of the combined Arab League Force; and never attempted to establish a peaceful arrangement through the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.  There was no closer on the mater with respect to the HoAP --- even by the Arab League.  In 1948 the Arab Palestinians vowed that they would never recognize the validity of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) and that of the Partition proposed and adopted.  The HoAP made a "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
> 
> Before you can even consider the possibility of a more theoretical alternative, one has to make a leap beyond the Palestinian fascination with conflict, martyrdom, and the generational inheritance of murder and mayhem, --- you have to conceive of there being a very different kind of Palestinian.  You have to be able to imagine --- conceive of a Palestinian that does not spend their time undermining a prosperous nation --- but a Palestinian that reaches to make the best of what they have in a peaceful manner.  The morph from the terrorist and jihadist demon that that is the Palestinian to the plans, designs, and oversees the construction of a new nation; the architect of a new way.
> 
> We would then have to see the Palestinian turn the possibility into a reality; one that has been recast and rebuild that which we call the Arab Palestinian, into a alternative national identity.  No one can do it for them.  The must want to do it.  Today, they cast the next generation to hate that which is Jewish.  Just as they ruined the last generation to to act the way that they do; believing that they have some special right to something they never worked for and never had.  The whole culture needs cleansed.
> 
> The idea that the Palestinians could have matched Israel, left unrestrained, it fantasy.  The would have been luck to achieve the status of a chaotic neighbor like Syrian.  Given the best of all conditions, there is no reason they could have achieved a Human Development Level for the best of the entire Arab League.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It is racist to speculate on the Palestinian's incompetence.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I see --- obviously I simply do not understand what racism is.  I thought it was:

*Cultural competence* — loosely defined as the ability to understand, appreciate and interact with people from cultures or belief systems different from one's own — has been a key aspect of psychological thinking and practice for some 50 years.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is racist to speculate on the Palestinian's incompetence.


*(COMMENT)*

What can I say.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OH, I see --- obviously I simply do not understand what racism is.  I thought it was:
> 
> *Cultural competence* — loosely defined as the ability to understand, appreciate and interact with people from cultures or belief systems different from one's own — has been a key aspect of psychological thinking and practice for some 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is racist to speculate on the Palestinian's incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What can I say.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I don't get your point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

I thought I would bring this post over here where it could be legitimately discussed.

The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

Here are some of the main points:

To start with, today's belief, expressed in the UN Charter and elsewhere, is that the government of a people must rest on the will of the people.

The universal principle isn't about how people decide, it is that the people, We, the People, get to decide for themselves.

more important the wishes of the millions of Arab Muslims already living in Palestine were simply ignored and overriden by armed force.​
The theory of "popular sovereignty" is the base for much of our international law. Look at the standard list of the inalienable rights of the people:

To self determination without external interference.
To independence and sovereignty.
To territorial integrity.​
These all apply to the people not states or governments.

The government of Israel was created in Palestine by foreigners in complete disregard of the will of the people and imposed on them by military force. The government of Israel violated all of the Palestinian's basic inalienable rights and continues to do so today.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> To start with, today's belief, expressed in the UN Charter and elsewhere, is that the government of a people must rest on the will of the people.The universal principle isn't about how people decide, it is that the people, We, the People, get to decide for themselves.



You keep talking like there is only one people.  There two peoples.  And BOTH peoples have rights.


​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> To start with, today's belief, expressed in the UN Charter and elsewhere, is that the government of a people must rest on the will of the people.The universal principle isn't about how people decide, it is that the people, We, the People, get to decide for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep talking like there is only one people.  There two peoples.  And BOTH peoples have rights.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

There is one people then there are the foreign colonists.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> To start with, today's belief, expressed in the UN Charter and elsewhere, is that the government of a people must rest on the will of the people.The universal principle isn't about how people decide, it is that the people, We, the People, get to decide for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep talking like there is only one people.  There two peoples.  And BOTH peoples have rights.
> ​
Click to expand...


There are native Palestinians, and there are European and African/Asian colonists, native rights trump colonist's rights, especially when those colonists were forced onto the native population against their will.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> There is one people then there are the foreign colonists.



The Jewish people have lived on that land for more than 3000 years. 

Let's review the apparent anti-Israel argument:

1.  Only those belonging to the majority have rights. 

2.  If a people has been successfully ethnically cleansed from their ancestral land they become foreigners and lose all rights to that land.

3.  Colonization is a perfectly legitimate way of transferring ownership of the land -- as long as its Arab colonization and not Jewish return.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one people then there are the foreign colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people have lived on that land for more than 3000 years.
> 
> Let's review the apparent anti-Israel argument:
> 
> 1.  Only those belonging to the majority have rights.
> 
> 2.  If a people has been successfully ethnically cleansed from their ancestral land they become foreigners and lose all rights to that land.
> 
> 3.  Colonization is a perfectly legitimate way of transferring ownership of the land -- as long as its Arab colonization and not Jewish return.
Click to expand...

I didn't say either of those.

Besides you are ducking the issues.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep talking like there is only one people.  There two peoples.  And BOTH peoples have rights.
> 
> 
> 
> There is one people then there are the foreign colonists.
Click to expand...


Then Boston is right.  The way to solve the problem is to expel as many of the Arab Muslim Palestinians as possible. Those remaining will adopt the Jewish language, faith and culture and in a hundred years or so Israel will be 100% Jewish.  And Arab Muslim Palestinians will be nothing but foreign colonists.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> The Jewish people have lived on that land for more than 3000 years.



A religious monotheistic cult that we now call Judaism may well have existed in the region in antiquity, that's not in dispute, but there is certainly no evidence that the native inhabitants of the region ever universally practiced it. In fact the available evidence contradicts that assertion. Judaism was only one of many cults in the area.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Let's review the apparent anti-Israel argument:
> 
> 1. Only those belonging to the majority have rights.
> 
> 2. If a people has been successfully ethnically cleansed from their ancestral land they become foreigners and lose all rights to that land.
> 
> 3. Colonization is a perfectly legitimate way of transferring ownership of the land -- as long as its Arab colonization and not Jewish return.



This is your interpretation of the anti-Zionist Paradise argument spun in a pro-Zionist way and based on false premises.

1. Everyone has rights, Human rights. However the rights of an indigenous population have greater weight than the rights of foreign colonists who have been foisted on them against their will. 

2. There is no historical evidence of mass population displacement during the Arab conquest or the early Caliphate period, the local population simply converted to Islam over time, due in large part to avoid taxes.

3. See 2. above.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review the apparent anti-Israel argument:
> 
> 1. Only those belonging to the majority have rights.
> 
> 2. If a people has been successfully ethnically cleansed from their ancestral land they become foreigners and lose all rights to that land.
> 
> 3. Colonization is a perfectly legitimate way of transferring ownership of the land -- as long as its Arab colonization and not Jewish return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your interpretation of the anti-Zionist Paradise argument spun in a pro-Zionist way and based on false premises.
> 
> 1. Everyone has rights, Human rights. However the rights of an indigenous population have greater weight than the rights of foreign colonists who have been foisted on them against their will.
> 
> 2. There is no historical evidence of mass population displacement during the Arab conquest or the early Caliphate period, the local population simply converted to Islam over time, due in large part to avoid taxes.
> 
> 3. See 2. above.
Click to expand...


Links?  Especially to point number 2.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review the apparent anti-Israel argument:
> 
> 1. Only those belonging to the majority have rights.
> 
> 2. If a people has been successfully ethnically cleansed from their ancestral land they become foreigners and lose all rights to that land.
> 
> 3. Colonization is a perfectly legitimate way of transferring ownership of the land -- as long as its Arab colonization and not Jewish return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your interpretation of the anti-Zionist Paradise argument spun in a pro-Zionist way and based on false premises.
> 
> 1. Everyone has rights, Human rights. However the rights of an indigenous population have greater weight than the rights of foreign colonists who have been foisted on them against their will.
> 
> 2. There is no historical evidence of mass population displacement during the Arab conquest or the early Caliphate period, the local population simply converted to Islam over time, due in large part to avoid taxes.
> 
> 3. See 2. above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Links?  Especially to point number 2.
Click to expand...



"Abandoned by the Byzantine garrison, the position of Christians living in the Holy Land was to deteriorate over the years. Most of the Christian tribes adopted Islam without further ado. In fact, the arrival of the Muslims was half-heartedly welcomed by a significant portion of the population. Many of the inhabitants were perceived by the orthodox church as heretics. Due to their theological ignorance they were only vaguely aware that their new rulers represented another religious faith. Furthermore, by professing Islam, they were able to join in as equals in an intoxicating life of military glory and plunder."

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]ISLAMIC CONQUESTS - THE SIEGE OF JERUSALEM[/FONT]


----------



## Fishlore

Biblical and archeological arguments are interesting but the only other government that uses them as Israel does is ISIS. Both these groups claim possession of territory taken by force on the basis of theologial argument and appeals to tradition. The rest of the world isn't buying either one. Israel is going from a secular democracy to a brutal and reactionary theocracy. America is being led along by the nose but we are wising up and time is running out.


----------



## Indeependent

Fishlore said:


> Biblical and archeological arguments are interesting but the only other government that uses them as Israel does is ISIS. Both these groups claim possession of territory taken by force on the basis of theologial argument and appeals to tradition. The rest of the world isn't buying either one. Israel is going from a secular democracy to a brutal and reactionary theocracy. America is being led along by the nose but we are wising up and time is running out.


Yes, you're absolutely correct.
Israel is going on a head chopping, machine gunning frenzy of the like not seen since you last posted anti-Israel bullshit.


----------



## montelatici

Israel uses F16s and artillery to murder civilians.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Israel uses F16s and artillery to murder civilians.


You're right!
Whatever you say!
Go for it!
Don't hold back.
The world is catching on!


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel uses F16s and artillery to murder civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right!
> Whatever you say!
> Go for it!
> Don't hold back.
> The world is catching on!
Click to expand...


You are right, even the U.S. puppet, Ban Ki-moon has caught on. LOL


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel uses F16s and artillery to murder civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right!
> Whatever you say!
> Go for it!
> Don't hold back.
> The world is catching on!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, even the U.S. puppet, Ban Ki-moon has caught on. LOL
Click to expand...

That's encouraging!
I think your postings are having the desired effect!


----------



## montelatici

I am sure they are. Facts generally do have the desired effect.


----------



## Challenger

Indeependent said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical and archeological arguments are interesting but the only other government that uses them as Israel does is ISIS. Both these groups claim possession of territory taken by force on the basis of theologial argument and appeals to tradition. The rest of the world isn't buying either one. Israel is going from a secular democracy to a brutal and reactionary theocracy. America is being led along by the nose but we are wising up and time is running out.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're absolutely correct.
> Israel is going on a head chopping, machine gunning frenzy of the like not seen since you last posted anti-Israel bullshit.
Click to expand...


Sounds about right, that's what the Zionists and their lackeys do; drone, artillery, missile strikes can have a tendancy to decapitate their victims, and that's what the IOF did for their summer break last year, did you miss that? Operation Big Rock...oh, too brutal...lets call it "Protective Edge" for the American media.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OH, I see --- obviously I simply do not understand what racism is.  I thought it was:
> 
> *Cultural competence* — loosely defined as the ability to understand, appreciate and interact with people from cultures or belief systems different from one's own — has been a key aspect of psychological thinking and practice for some 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is racist to speculate on the Palestinian's incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> What can I say.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Only in the modern West, the peoples of the East especially those of the Levant have been very adept in this practice for centuries. Just look at the Ottoman Empire, one of the most culturally diverse and tolerant regimes in history. It just took an influx of intolerant Europeans savages to upset the orange cart.


----------



## Fishlore

There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.

Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?

Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.


----------



## Indeependent

Fishlore said:


> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.


Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination.
Eventually, Jordan will have to absorb them and will probably kill them "by accident".


----------



## RoccoR

Indeependent,  et al,

It is not a foregone conclusion that the Arab Palestinians cannot achieve a better quality of life and a higher level of human development.  It is only highly probable given their inability to adapt to changing conditions.

The real question is --- did the Arab Palestinian process of changing its strategy from the 1967 and 1973 reflect the same failures to adapt in the failures experienced in the 1948 War of Independence.   



Indeependent said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination.
> Eventually, Jordan will have to absorb them and will probably kill them "by accident".
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is generally the case that the Arab Palestinian attempts _(more often then not)_ to USE FORCE to achieve the political Islamic objectives (whether Jihadist or Economic) that were unattainable through the peaceful means endorsed by the UN Charter and articulated in the Declaration of Principles. 

The stratagem to gradually overrun the Jewish State of Israel _(with anti-Semitic Arabs)_, such that, the Jewish become a minority again --- is not unusual.  It would set the Jewish in danger of being oppressed once more by those hostile to protecting and preserving the Jewish National Home.  This with the agenda of rendering the Jewish incapable of their own self-defense anti-semitic forces posed by the Arab Palestinian.  These anti-semitic forces typically orchestrate changes in law that will grant an undisputed advantages to the anti-semitic and gradually increasing disadvantages on the Jewish constituents.

Jordan already had a struggle against a Palestinian insurrection (1970) which attempted to overthrow the government and assassinate the King (not once but twice).  It is unlikely that the Hashemite Kingdom will want to grant the Palestinians and further voice in the government; or --- reestablish administrative and legal ties with Palestinians.  The previous relationship, that proved dangerous in the past, the Palestinians attempting to achieve through the USE of FORCE against the Hashemite Kingdom.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Fishlore

Indeependent said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination.
> Eventually, Jordan will have to absorb them and will probably kill them "by accident".
Click to expand...

The sanctions have not yet been applied, nor would I expect them to be. At some point when a sanctions resolution is about to come before the UN GA the USA will inform Israel discreetly that we will not use our SC veto to stop it, the government of Israel will take a deep breath and agree to whatever plan the US is backing. We are not going to humilliate Israel in public, much less withdraw economic or military support. When the US finally puts its foot down, Israel will dance the horah.

I hope that condescending sarcasm such as _"Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination." _ can be omitted in future posts.


----------



## Indeependent

Fishlore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination.
> Eventually, Jordan will have to absorb them and will probably kill them "by accident".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sanctions have not yet been applied, nor would I expect them to be. At some point when a sanctions resolution is about to come before the UN GA the USA will inform Israel discreetly that we will not use our SC veto to stop it, the government of Israel will take a deep breath and agree to whatever plan the US is backing. We are not going to humilliate Israel in public, much less withdraw economic or military support. When the US finally puts its foot down, Israel will dance the horah.
> 
> I hope that condescending sarcasm such as _"Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination." _ can be omitted in future posts.
Click to expand...


You are correct if a Democrat or a Republican besides Trump is in the White House.


----------



## montelatici

When have a people ever gained independence from a colonial overlord without the use of force?  The Jewish National Home was built on land that Palestinians, Christians and Muslims, subsequently expelled had lived on for millennia.  It was ethnic cleansing by Europeans.


----------



## Indeependent

Fishlore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that condescending sarcasm such as _"Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination." _ can be omitted in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People continuously post a failed policy as successful.
> Why should I not mock this?
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> When have a people ever gained independence from a colonial overlord without the use of force?  The Jewish National Home was built on land that Palestinians, Christians and Muslims, subsequently expelled had lived on for millennia.  It was ethnic cleansing by Europeans.



Never, and that's why you should continue to collect your hoards of followers.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> When have a people ever gained independence from a colonial overlord without the use of force?



I can think of at least a few examples.  Some of the First Nations peoples of Canada being the ones on the top of my head.  



montelatici said:


> The Jewish National Home was built on land that Palestinians, Christians and Muslims, subsequently expelled had lived on for millennia.  It was ethnic cleansing by Europeans.



Land that the Jewish people had been expelled from and ethnically cleansed from -- land they had lived on for millenia.  Either expulsion and ethnic cleansing ENDS rights to self-determination and sovereignty or it doesn't.  You choose which.  But you can't have it both ways.


----------



## montelatici

Jews had never lived in Palestine for millennia.  They invaded the area and were quickly removed by the Assyrians.


----------



## abu afak

montelatici said:


> *Jews had Never lived in Palestine for Millennia.  They invaded the area and were quickly removed by the Assyrians.*


Really?

History of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...In the late 13th century, Palestine and Syria were the primary front for battles between the Egyptian Mamluks and the Mongol Empire. The pivotal battle was the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260, when the Mamluks, after having brokered a cautious neutrality with the Crusaders (who regarded the Mongols as a greater threat), were able to advance northwards and achieve a decisive victory over the Mongols at Ain Jalut, near Galilee. The Mongols were, however, able to engage into some brief Mongol raids into Palestine in 1260 and 1300, reaching as far as Gaza.

Due to the many earthquakes, the religious extremism and the black plague that hit during this era, the Population Dwindled to around 200,000. *It is during this period that the land began to have a Levantine Muslim majority and even in the traditional Jewish stronghold of Eastern Galilee, a new Jewish-Muslim culture began to develop.*

The Mamluk Sultanate ultimately became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, in the wake of campaigns waged by Selim I in the 16th century.

Early modern period

In 1516 the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine.[61] The country became part of the Ottoman Empire. Constantinople appointed local governors. Public works, including the city walls, were rebuilt in Jerusalem by Suleiman the Magnificent in 1537. An area around Tiberias was given to Don Joseph Nasi for a Jewish enclave.
*Following the expulsions from Spain, the Jewish population of Palestine rose to around 25%* 
(includes non-Ottoman citizens, excludes Bedouin) and regained its former stronghold of Eastern Galilee.
*That ended in 1660 when they were massacred at Safed and Jerusalem. *During the reign of Dahar al Omar, Pasha of the Galilee, Jews from Ukraine began to resettle Tiberias.
[.....]

History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MUCH more from Middle Ages. Jews NEVER completely Left , always maintaining a presence]

*The 16th-century nevertheless saw a resurgence of Jewish life in Palestine.* Palestinian rabbis were instrumental producing a universally accepted manual of Jewish law and some of the most beautiful liturgical poems. Much of this activity occurred at Safed which had become a spiritual centre, a haven for mystics. Joseph Karo's comprehensive guide to Jewish law, the _Shulchan Aruch_, was considered so authoritative that the variant customs of German-Polish Jewry were merely added as supplement glosses.[126] Some of the most celebrated hymns were written at in Safed by poets such as Israel Najara and Solomon Alkabetz.[127] The town was also a centre of Jewish mysticism, notable kabbalists included Moses Cordovero and the German-born Naphtali Hertz ben Jacob Elhanan.[128][129][130] A new method of understanding the kabbalah was developed by Palestinian mysticIsaac Luria, and espoused by his student Chaim Vital. In Safed, the Jews developed a number of branches of trade, especially in grain, spices, textiles and dyeing. In 1577, a Hebrew printing press was established in Safed. The 8,000 or 10,000 Jews in Safed in 1555 grew to 20,000 or 30,000 by the end of the century.

*Old Yishuv*



Jewish life in the Land of Israel under Ottomanrule
*Key events*

Aliya of Nachmanides (1267)
Hebron and Safed massacres (1517)
Revival of Tiberias (1563)
Sack of Tiberias (1660)
Hebron massacre (1834)
Safed attack (1838)
Jerusalem expansion
Moshavot
*Key figures*

Ishtori Haparchi (d. 1313)
Joseph Saragossi (d. 1507)
Obadiah MiBartenura (d. 1515)
Levi ibn Habib (d. 1545)
Jacob Berab (d. 1546)
Joseph Nasi (d. 1579)
Moses Galante (d. 1689)
Moses ibn Habib (d. 1696)
Yehuda he-Hasid (d. 1700)
Haim Abulafia (d. 1744)
Menachem Mendel (d. 1788)
Haim Farhi (d. 1820)
Jacob Saphir (d. 1886)
Haim Aharon Valero (d. 1923)
*Economy*

Etrog cultivation
Winemaking
Banking
Printing
Kosher soap production
*Philanthropy*

Kollel
Halukka
Montefiore
Judah Touro

*Communities*

Musta'arabim
Sephardim
Perushim
Hasidim

Jerusalem
Mea Shearim
Mishkenot Sha'ananim

Hebron
Safed
Tiberias
Jaffa
Haifa
Peki'in
Acco
Shechem
Gaza
Kafr Yasif
Shefa-'Amr
Petach Tikva
*Synagogues*

Great Academy of Paris (1258)
Ramban (1267)
Abuhav (1490s)
Abraham Avinu (1540)
Ari (1570s)
Johanan ben Zakai (1600s)
Hurva (1700)
Tifereth Israel (1872)
[..........]
*In around 1563, Joseph Nasi secured permission from Sultan Selim II to acquire Tiberias and seven surrounding villages to create a Jewish city-state.*[131] He hoped that large numbers of Jewish refugees and Marranos would settle there, free from fear and oppression; indeed, the persecuted Jews of Cori, Italy, numbering about 200 souls, decided to emigrate to Tiberias.[132][133] Nasi had the walls of the town rebuilt by 1564 and attempted to turn it into a self-sufficient textile manufacturing center by planting mulberry trees for the cultivation of silk. Nevertheless, a number of factors during the following years contributed to the plan's ultimate failure. Nasi's aunt, Doña Gracia Mendes Nasi supported a _yeshiva_ in the town for many years until her death in 1569.[134]

In 1567, a Yemenite scholar and Rabbi, Zechariah Dhahiri, visited Safedand wrote of his experiences in a book entitled _Sefer Ha-Musar_. His vivid descriptions of the town Safed and of Rabbi Joseph Karo’s _yeshiva_ are of primary importance to historians, seeing that they are a first-hand account of these places, and the only extant account which describes the _yeshiva_of the great Sephardic Rabbi, Joseph Karo.[135]

*In 1576, the Jewish community of Safed faced an expulsion order:* 1,000 prosperous families were to be deported to Cyprus, "for the good of the said island", with another 500 the following year.[136] The order was later rescinded due to the realisation of the financial gains of Jewish rental income.[137] In 1586, the Jews of Istanbul agreed to build a fortified _khan_to provide a refuge for Safed's Jews against "night bandits and armed thieves."[136]

In 1569, the Radbaz moved to Jerusalem, but soon moved to Safed to escape the high taxes imposed on Jews by the authorities.

*In 1610, the Yochanan ben Zakai Synagogue in Jerusalem was completed.*[138] It became the main synagogue of the Sephardic Jews, the place where their chief rabbi was invested. The adjacent study hall which had been added by 1625 later became the Synagogue of Elijah the Prophet.[138]
[,,,,,,]​


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Again, this is a perspective --- yet it is only partially true.



montelatici said:


> Jews had never lived in Palestine for millennia.  They invaded the area and were quickly removed by the Assyrians.


*(COMMENT)*

It is probably more accurate to say:

The Arab Palestinians have no history of sovereign control for nearly a 1000 years.  The Israelis were encouraged to migrate under the authority of the Allied Powers and the assigned Mandatory Power.​
The Arab Palestinian attempted to usurp the authority granted to the Allied Powers under the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 16).
The Arab Palestine opposed the Allied Powers in The Great War (WWI).
The Arab Palestinian opposed the Allied Powers in World War II.
Why should the Arab Palestinian be rewarded for their opposition to the Allied Powers?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Then Boston is right.  The way to solve the problem is to expel as many of the Arab Muslim Palestinians as possible. Those remaining will adopt the Jewish language, faith and culture and in a hundred years or so Israel will be 100% Jewish.  And Arab Muslim Palestinians will be nothing but foreign colonists.


Is that what you call the Jewish caliphate?


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Land that the Jewish people had been expelled from and ethnically cleansed from



Prove it; using acedemic, non-Biblical/Quranic sources.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Land that the Jewish people had been expelled from and ethnically cleansed from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it; using acedemic, non-Biblical/Quranic sources.
Click to expand...


Don't you know what happened in the year 70 of the Common Era?


----------



## Challenger

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Land that the Jewish people had been expelled from and ethnically cleansed from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it; using acedemic, non-Biblical/Quranic sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you know what happened in the year 70 of the Common Era?
Click to expand...


Yes.
According to Josephus' "Wars of the Jews", 6:9 anything between 1,100,000-2,700,000 Jewish cultists along with other inhabitants of the city who were just unlucky to be in the wrong place when the Romans arriveddied during the seige of their cult centre, Jerusalem. This population may well have been almost the entire Jewish population of Judea as Jerusalem was never that large a city and Josephus mentioned that the majority were Jewish cultists who had come from all around the region to celebrate their Passover rituals at the Temple, the cult centre. Of the 97,000 survivors of the siege and sack, according to Josephus, 11,000 starved to death while prisoners, a further 2,000 committed suicide. An unspecified but large number were sold to the mines in Egypt and another unspecified, but significant number were distributed around the empire's various amphitheatres to be exposed to wild animals or executed in other ways as the locals saw fit. The remainder were either killed, as in the very young or elderly, reserved for the Triumph in Rome, or sold off in local slave markets to pay for the war.

That is of course if you believe Josephus' figures to be accurate and not inflated to curry favour with his patrons, the Flavians.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it.  The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.
> 
> In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan.  Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's.  It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it.  That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories".  What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield?  Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements?  RoccoR









You are confusing the mandate of Palestine to the UN partition plan which are two separate things. The mandate sets out in stone the boundaries of the Jewish and arab sections of Palestine, due to concerns on there being a wholly Jewish Palestine. The land granted to the Jews was from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea and included the west bank, Jerusalem, gaza and the Golan heights. Israel was declared inside the 1923 mandate boundaries, and the arab muslims refused to be a party so lost the chance of taking control of the other parts. Israel has never taken any land that was not always theirs to begin with, and only rabid Jew haters say that they did this after the war of 1967. It has occupied the land under the terms of the Geneva conventions since 1967, it has tot taken it like Jordan did in 1949.

 Under International law the parcel of land called Jewish Palestine in the LoN treaties and delineated in the mandate of Palestine belongs to the Jews. The mandate being an international treaty became international law and has never been over ruled by any subsequent international law. The UN only gives recommendations, it very rarely issues International laws


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Land that the Jewish people had been expelled from and ethnically cleansed from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it; using acedemic, non-Biblical/Quranic sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you know what happened in the year 70 of the Common Era?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> According to Josephus' "Wars of the Jews", 6:9 anything between 1,100,000-2,700,000 Jewish cultists along with other inhabitants of the city who were just unlucky to be in the wrong place when the Romans arriveddied during the seige of their cult centre, Jerusalem. This population may well have been almost the entire Jewish population of Judea as Jerusalem was never that large a city and Josephus mentioned that the majority were Jewish cultists who had come from all around the region to celebrate their Passover rituals at the Temple, the cult centre. Of the 97,000 survivors of the siege and sack, according to Josephus, 11,000 starved to death while prisoners, a further 2,000 committed suicide. An unspecified but large number were sold to the mines in Egypt and another unspecified, but significant number were distributed around the empire's various amphitheatres to be exposed to wild animals or executed in other ways as the locals saw fit. The remainder were either killed, as in the very young or elderly, reserved for the Triumph in Rome, or sold off in local slave markets to pay for the war.
> 
> That is of course if you believe Josephus' figures to be accurate and not inflated to curry favour with his patrons, the Flavians.
Click to expand...








 WHY DO YOU LIE as I cant find any mention of Jewish cultists in any of the references you make. Is this because you are a hostile racist POS islamonazi terrorist.    Shows that you don't have a leg to stand on with your claims when you have to demonise the Jews as you do to curry favour


----------



## Fishlore

Indeependent said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that condescending sarcasm such as _"Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination." _ can be omitted in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People continuously post a failed policy as successful.
> Why should I not mock this?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Aside from the issue of mocking the poster not the policy, you shouldn't mock BDS as a failed policy because it hasn't yet been tried and so has neither failed nor succeeded.


----------



## Indeependent

Fishlore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that condescending sarcasm such as _"Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination." _ can be omitted in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People continuously post a failed policy as successful.
> Why should I not mock this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from the issue of mocking the poster not the policy, you shouldn't mock BDS as a failed policy because it hasn't yet been tried and so has neither failed nor succeeded.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been tried?!
Whatever validity you had just got blown away.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that condescending sarcasm such as _"Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination." _ can be omitted in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People continuously post a failed policy as successful.
> Why should I not mock this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from the issue of mocking the poster not the policy, you shouldn't mock BDS as a failed policy because it hasn't yet been tried and so has neither failed nor succeeded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been tried?!
> Whatever validity you had just got blown away.
Click to expand...


In comparison with the equivalent movement against South Africa.  BDS is way ahead.  

In 1962, the first call for disinvestment with respect to South Africa was mocked by all Western nations.  In 1964  the International Conference for Economic Sanctions Against South Africa_. _The conference was held to be illegal and unconstitutional by the British government. It wasn't until the mid-80s that the full brunt of the sanctions were brought to bear.  It took over 20 years.  BDS is about 10 years old.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Boston is right.  The way to solve the problem is to expel as many of the Arab Muslim Palestinians as possible. Those remaining will adopt the Jewish language, faith and culture and in a hundred years or so Israel will be 100% Jewish.  And Arab Muslim Palestinians will be nothing but foreign colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you call the Jewish caliphate?
Click to expand...


It was sarcasm, Billo.  Meant to illuminate the silliness of the argument that those who colonize and conquor become the indigenous culture after everyone adopts the colonizing culture.  See?  If the Jewish people do what the Arab Muslims did then the Jewish people, according to the Palestinians-are-indigenous argument, will in the future be the indigenous culture.  See how that works?  We can make the Jewish people the indigenous culture again through colonization and force.

Its always fun to turn the tables with the anti-Israel crowd.  Ethnic cleansing, forced conversion, colonization is all fine and dandy when the Arab Muslims are doing it, but when you flip the card and suggest that the Jewish people do the same thing -- suddenly its immoral.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Boston is right.  The way to solve the problem is to expel as many of the Arab Muslim Palestinians as possible. Those remaining will adopt the Jewish language, faith and culture and in a hundred years or so Israel will be 100% Jewish.  And Arab Muslim Palestinians will be nothing but foreign colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you call the Jewish caliphate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was sarcasm, Billo.  Meant to illuminate the silliness of the argument that those who colonize and conquor become the indigenous culture after everyone adopts the colonizing culture.  See?  If the Jewish people do what the Arab Muslims did then the Jewish people, according to the Palestinians-are-indigenous argument, will in the future be the indigenous culture.  See how that works?  We can make the Jewish people the indigenous culture again through colonization and force.
> 
> Its always fun to turn the tables with the anti-Israel crowd.  Ethnic cleansing, forced conversion, colonization is all fine and dandy when the Arab Muslims are doing it, but when you flip the card and suggest that the Jewish people do the same thing -- suddenly its immoral.
Click to expand...


What did the Muslim or Christian Palestinians do to the Jews that you are complaining about? The people of Palestine were all Christians when the Muslims invaded.


----------



## Fishlore

Indeependent said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are four or five million Palestinians under Israeli occupation. The UN and the USA and just about every nation on the planet agree that they should have a country of their own. If the UN doesn't implement this "two-state solution" in some form or other, what is going to happen to those Palestinians? One answer, I suppose, would be a "final solution" of mass murder. Not likely. Incorporating them into Eretz Israel means keeping them without voting rights and only limited personal rights because if the Palestinians are given full citienship, Jews become a minority in Israel.
> 
> Bibi and his Likud coalition are inching their way to some sort of one-state solution with limited rights for those millions of Palestinians. How can anyone with any knowledge of the past forty years of conflict think that plan is going to work?
> 
> Some right wingers think Likud can tough it out because the IDF is unbeatable in combat, but there isn't going to be any combat. There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure. The USA will never waver in its support of Israel but that doesn't mean that we will back anything and everything that the right wing Likud dreams up.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that condescending sarcasm such as _"Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination." _ can be omitted in future posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People continuously post a failed policy as successful.
> Why should I not mock this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from the issue of mocking the poster not the policy, you shouldn't mock BDS as a failed policy because it hasn't yet been tried and so has neither failed nor succeeded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been tried?!
> Whatever validity you had just got blown away.
Click to expand...

I think you mean "credibility" not "validity." Hard to tell. BDS has not become the policy of any national government or supra-national organization. The various symbolic protests and calls for divestment have alarmed Likud but had not real effect yet. Sanctions can only be done by sovereign bodies. Significant boycott by international trading partners has yet to occur. 

The day that BDS programs such as those imposed on Iran and North Korea are applied to Israel will, in all likelyhood, never come because once Israel gets the "no kidding" message from the USA, as in "we aren't going to veto the UN resolution," or the EU imposes a boycott on Israeli goods, the state of Israel will back down because Israel cannot survive without continuous outside financial support.

If you persist in attacking me personally I will have the unhappy choice of replying in kind or ignoring you. Please stick to the issue.


----------



## Indeependent

Fishlore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that condescending sarcasm such as _"Yep!  Those sanctions have worked out real well...in your imagination." _ can be omitted in future posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People continuously post a failed policy as successful.
> Why should I not mock this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from the issue of mocking the poster not the policy, you shouldn't mock BDS as a failed policy because it hasn't yet been tried and so has neither failed nor succeeded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been tried?!
> Whatever validity you had just got blown away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you mean "credibility" not "validity." Hard to tell. BDS has not become the policy of any national government or supra-national organization. The various symbolic protests and calls for divestment have alarmed Likud but had not real effect yet. Sanctions can only be done by sovereign bodies. Significant boycott by international trading partners has yet to occur.
> 
> The day that BDS programs such as those imposed on Iran and North Korea are applied to Israel will, in all likelyhood, never come because once Israel gets the "no kidding" message from the USA, as in "we aren't going to veto the UN resolution," or the EU imposes a boycott on Israeli goods, the state of Israel will back down because Israel cannot survive without continuous outside financial support.
> 
> If you persist in attacking me personally I will have the unhappy choice of replying in kind or ignoring you. Please stick to the issue.
Click to expand...

I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure.
Lending it's "success" any credibility shows you didn't do your research before asserting it was a success.


----------



## Challenger

Indeependent said:


> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure...



...which is why the Zionist camp has been spending $millions trying to combat it and the Zionist regime calls it a strategic threat...not quite "abject" and still ongoing so not a "failure" either.


----------



## Indeependent

Challenger said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is why the Zionist camp has been spending $millions trying to combat it and the Zionist regime calls it a strategic threat...not quite "abject" and still ongoing so not a "failure" either.
Click to expand...

I guess that's why Israelis are inundated with global business contracts.


----------



## Fishlore

Indeependent said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> People continuously post a failed policy as successful.
> Why should I not mock this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from the issue of mocking the poster not the policy, you shouldn't mock BDS as a failed policy because it hasn't yet been tried and so has neither failed nor succeeded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been tried?!
> Whatever validity you had just got blown away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you mean "credibility" not "validity." Hard to tell. BDS has not become the policy of any national government or supra-national organization. The various symbolic protests and calls for divestment have alarmed Likud but had not real effect yet. Sanctions can only be done by sovereign bodies. Significant boycott by international trading partners has yet to occur.
> 
> The day that BDS programs such as those imposed on Iran and North Korea are applied to Israel will, in all likelyhood, never come because once Israel gets the "no kidding" message from the USA, as in "we aren't going to veto the UN resolution," or the EU imposes a boycott on Israeli goods, the state of Israel will back down because Israel cannot survive without continuous outside financial support.
> 
> If you persist in attacking me personally I will have the unhappy choice of replying in kind or ignoring you. Please stick to the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure.
> Lending it's "success" any credibility shows you didn't do your research before asserting it was a success.
Click to expand...

What I said in post #483 was "There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure." You might want to not the future tense "going to be." The BDS movement has grown in support and continues to grow. It isn't a "failure" it is a "proposal."

There are are only two alternatives to BDS. One is to walk away and leave Likud with the fruits of its illegal aggression, including millions of stateless Palestinians, in violation of UN resolutions and US policy. The other is war. No one can predicte the future; however, SBD seems the most likely of the three.


----------



## Challenger

Indeependent said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is why the Zionist camp has been spending $millions trying to combat it and the Zionist regime calls it a strategic threat...not quite "abject" and still ongoing so not a "failure" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why Israelis are inundated with global business contracts.
Click to expand...

So was South Africa in it's day.


----------



## Fishlore

Indeependent said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is why the Zionist camp has been spending $millions trying to combat it and the Zionist regime calls it a strategic threat...not quite "abject" and still ongoing so not a "failure" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why Israelis are inundated with global business contracts.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. Israel is dependent on international trade and aid. Unlike, say, Iran, Israel cannot produce its own energy or food. When the trade and investment from other countries flows, Israel does great because it's high tech industries produce real value added. On the other hand, if international trade is cut off, Israel cannot survive. 

You seem to think that Israel is "inundated" with international business. This is a bit of an overstatement. The global slowdown isn't doing Israel any good and the internal economy has some real problems with low income families and rising costs of food and housing. In any event, Israel is not suffering from BDS because those sanctions, boycotts and disinvestments aren't happening. They are being talked about more and more and the Israeli response is is becoming increasingly shrill, a sure sign that, if applied, BDS would bring Israel to its knees.

That isn't going to happen because once the threat of BDS becomes imanent, Israel will do whatever is required to prevent BDS from going into effect. Israel's biggest trading partner is not the USA, it is the EU. BDS is not something that the US can block with a veto in the Security Council or anyplace else.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Fishlore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is why the Zionist camp has been spending $millions trying to combat it and the Zionist regime calls it a strategic threat...not quite "abject" and still ongoing so not a "failure" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why Israelis are inundated with global business contracts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make a good point. Israel is dependent on international trade and aid. Unlike, say, Iran, Israel cannot produce its own energy or food. When the trade and investment from other countries flows, Israel does great because it's high tech industries produce real value added. On the other hand, if international trade is cut off, Israel cannot survive.
> 
> You seem to think that Israel is "inundated" with international business. This is a bit of an overstatement. The global slowdown isn't doing Israel any good and the internal economy has some real problems with low income families and rising costs of food and housing. In any event, Israel is not suffering from BDS because those sanctions, boycotts and disinvestments aren't happening. They are being talked about more and more and the Israeli response is is becoming increasingly shrill, a sure sign that, if applied, BDS would bring Israel to its knees.
> 
> That isn't going to happen because once the threat of BDS becomes imanent, Israel will do whatever is required to prevent BDS from going into effect. Israel's biggest trading partner is not the USA, it is the EU. BDS is not something that the US can block with a veto in the Security Council or anyplace else.
Click to expand...


I don't think Israel is dependent on anyone for food.  There are many kibbutzim (farms) in Israel.  Energy and some manufactured goods are somewhat of a concern.  Remember that the BDS movement only applies to the territories (and ironically hurts Palestinian workers), and not to goods produced in Israel.  Also, Israel is a leader in the high-tech industry, and gets alot of foreign aid from America.  They will not go under anytime soon.


----------



## montelatici

Israel has to import 80% of the grain it consumes.  Israel is dependent on aid from abroad especially from the U.S. and World Jewry, without it Israel would go under.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Israel has to import 80% of the grain it consumes.  Israel is dependent on aid from abroad especially from the U.S. and World Jewry, without it Israel would go under.


Key phrase..."World Jew"; overwhelmingly educated and successful.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has to import 80% of the grain it consumes.  Israel is dependent on aid from abroad especially from the U.S. and World Jewry, without it Israel would go under.
> 
> 
> 
> Key phrase..."World Jew"; overwhelmingly educated and successful.
Click to expand...


"World Jewry" has a specific meaning that you may not be familiar with.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Israel has to import 80% of the grain it consumes.  Israel is dependent on aid from abroad especially from the U.S. and World Jewry, without it Israel would go under.


Just more of your pointless babbling. 

Israel Economy Facts & Stats


----------



## abu afak

Fishlore said:


> You make a good point. Israel is dependent on international trade and aid. Unlike, say, Iran, Israel cannot produce its own energy or food. When the trade and investment from other countries flows, Israel does great because it's high tech industries produce real value added. On the other hand, if international trade is cut off, Israel cannot survive.


Challenger NEVER makes good points.
He is an 'anti-cough-zionist' and Not knowledgeable on the conflict, and obviously neither are you.

Israel has HUGE Natural Gas deposits already in production, and will be exporting them by the end of this year.
The First signing customer is... the Palestinian Authority.
ALL the neighbors want some.
This is such OLD and Ongoing News, but apparently hasn't reached you.
Google
If you are not aware of this.. you know NOTHING and are not even in this discussion/section.

It is using also using that NG for DeSal projects and despite being in good part desert, will be a net exporter of Water.
Of course - The Inventor of Drip Irrigation - Israel - recycles 80% of it's water, 8x second place Spain.

Made in Israel: Water

It is Not dependent on Aid, tho it does help subsidize it's large Defense budget.
It has one of the best economies on the planet.
Good luck with a grain embargo. LOL.




			
				Fishlore said:
			
		

> You seem to think that Israel is "inundated" with international business. This is a bit of an overstatement. The global slowdown isn't doing Israel any good and the internal economy has some real problems with low income families and rising costs of food and housing. In any event, Israel is not suffering from BDS because those sanctions, boycotts and disinvestments aren't happening. They are being talked about more and more and the Israeli response is is becoming increasingly shrill, a sure sign that, if applied, BDS would bring Israel to its knees.


Global slowdown doesn't do anyone any good.
But Tech cos like Intel Flock to (and are expanding in) Israel for Jewish Brains.


Also
Made in Israel – Medicine
+


----------



## Challenger

abu afak said:


> Challenger NEVER makes good points.
> He is an 'anti-cough-zionist' and Not knowledgeable on the conflict...



LOL! You know they're running scared when they post this sort of drivel.


----------



## Fishlore

abu afak said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good point. Israel is dependent on international trade and aid. Unlike, say, Iran, Israel cannot produce its own energy or food. When the trade and investment from other countries flows, Israel does great because it's high tech industries produce real value added. On the other hand, if international trade is cut off, Israel cannot survive.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger NEVER makes good points.
> He is an 'anti-cough-zionist' and Not knowledgeable on the conflict, and obviously neither are you.
> 
> Israel has HUGE Natural Gas deposits already in production, and will be exporting them by the end of this year.
> The First signing customer is... the Palestinian Authority.
> ALL the neighbors want some.
> This is such OLD and Ongoing News, but apparently hasn't reached you.
> Google
> If you are not aware of this.. you know NOTHING and are not even in this discussion/section.
> 
> It is using also using that NG for DeSal projects and despite being in good part desert, will be a net exporter of Water.
> Of course - The Inventor of Drip Irrigation - Israel - recycles 80% of it's water, 8x second place Spain.
> 
> Made in Israel: Water
> 
> It is Not dependent on Aid, tho it does help subsidize it's large Defense budget.
> It has one of the best economies on the planet.
> Good luck with a grain embargo. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think that Israel is "inundated" with international business. This is a bit of an overstatement. The global slowdown isn't doing Israel any good and the internal economy has some real problems with low income families and rising costs of food and housing. In any event, Israel is not suffering from BDS because those sanctions, boycotts and disinvestments aren't happening. They are being talked about more and more and the Israeli response is is becoming increasingly shrill, a sure sign that, if applied, BDS would bring Israel to its knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Global slowdown doesn't do anyone any good.
> But Tech cos like Intel Flock to (and are expanding in) Israel for Jewish Brains.
> 
> 
> Also
> Made in Israel – Medicine
> +
Click to expand...

To hear you tell it, Israel is producing water faster than when Moses whacked that rock in the desert. With all this wonderful water, why is it they are cutting off water to the Palestinian residents on the West Bank? This is the sort of crime against humanity that got the Germans such bad press in the 1930s.


----------



## Boston1

Yikes, did that ever get off track. 

Lets try this. 

Israel was not created by the UN, it was created by the Zionists who tried to negotiate through the UN with the Nazi's; oops, the Arab Muslims and actually make a 3 state solution. Since there was clearly going to be a third country called Jordan. The Arab League wouldn't have it and refused all negotiations. 

So as soon as the UN was out of the way via the charter expiring the Zionists created the state themselves with undefined borders. 

But no matter how you slice it, the UN didn't create Israel. What the UN did was take over the mandate and attempt to set up a Jewish national homeland, it failed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Actually, this would be better here:

Palestinian Authority Makes New Threats. "We'll Hijack Your Planes."

So you can produce a valid unbiased and non partisan link that says the LoN held the land in trust for the inhabitants.​------------------------
The Mandate system was instituted by the League of Nations in the early 20th century to administer non-self-governing territories. The mandatory power, appointed by an international body, *was to consider the mandated territory a temporary trust *and to see to the well-being and advancement of its population.

History & Overview of the British Palestine Mandate | Jewish Virtual Library


----------



## Fishlore

The tangled history of the conflict is fascinating. What is pretty certain as far into the future as the eye can see is that Israel is not going to go away. Equally obvious is that the four hundred million Arabs backing the Palestinians aren't going away either. 

The situation has gotten into a mess such that the two contending parties, Israel and Palestine, can't or won't solve the problem between themselves. Nothing unusual there; in those periods of peace in the region, the peace has been imposed and enforced by a powerful outside party. Our problem now is that there are various candidate for such a role (USA, Iran, Arab League, Turkey, UN etc.) only one of whom seems likely to be able to get the job. 

The UN is blocked by the USA because our client, Israel is hoping for a lot more land than the UN is likely to give Israel in any peace settlement.  Israel still hopes to bully its way into Eretz Israel with American backing. That isn't going to happen, but until the US sends that message to Likud in clear language backed up by a no-veto threat, innocent women and kids are going to continue to be blown to pieces all over the City of Peace.


----------



## P F Tinmore

From:

Boycott Israel

What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?

You asked this many times before.​
Indeed, and you have ducked it every time.


----------



## Boston1

P F Tinmore said:


> From:
> 
> Boycott Israel
> 
> What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?
> 
> You asked this many times before.​
> Indeed, and you have ducked it every time.



I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble following the conversation

Its been well established within the mandate that the Judaic people were entitled to set up governance of a national Jewish homeland anywhere west of the Jordan and within the mandated area.

You have been shown the Jordan memorandum countless times

If you are having trouble comprehending it, thats fine, but the document is clear and there can be no doubt that international agreement grants Israel ALL the mandate territory west of the Jordan.


----------



## Shusha

The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.


----------



## Billo_Really

Boston1 said:


> I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble following the conversation
> 
> Its been well established within the mandate that the Judaic people were entitled to set up governance of a national Jewish homeland anywhere west of the Jordan and within the mandated area.
> 
> You have been shown the Jordan memorandum countless times
> 
> If you are having trouble comprehending it, thats fine, but the document is clear and there can be no doubt that international agreement grants Israel ALL the mandate territory west of the Jordan.


_ "...the Judaic people were entitled..."
_
Boy, is that a whopper!

You move into my neighborhood and think your "entitled" to my home, just because your great, great, great, great, great, grandmother lived there years ago?


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.


Oh, it happened.  But it was done with the caveat that any Jewish homeland, could only be done without prejudicing any of the existing, indigenous, non-Jewish residents, in that area.

But that's not what happened.  You migrated in (some illegally) with extreme prejudice.


----------



## Boston1

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble following the conversation
> 
> Its been well established within the mandate that the Judaic people were entitled to set up governance of a national Jewish homeland anywhere west of the Jordan and within the mandated area.
> 
> You have been shown the Jordan memorandum countless times
> 
> If you are having trouble comprehending it, thats fine, but the document is clear and there can be no doubt that international agreement grants Israel ALL the mandate territory west of the Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> _ "...the Judaic people were entitled..."
> _
> Boy, is that a whopper!
> 
> You move into my neighborhood and think your "entitled" to my home, just because your great, great, great, great, great, grandmother lived there years ago?
Click to expand...


Regardless of the various Arab Nazi pogroms against the Judaic people huge number still remained within the area of their cultural and racial beginnings. Present day ISRAEL. 

In a long overdue victory for native rights the LoN assigned an area to these native peoples. Just as they assigned other areas to other peoples. 

Yet for all the whining and crying we hear about this particular state, we don't hear a thing about any of the others. 

What is unique about this particular state ? Its the ONLY Jewish state. Which leads to the logical conclusion that these complaints are based on racism and bigotry. By people so petty that while in one breath they bemoan the plight of an invented race, in the other they ignore the reality of an actual native peoples struggles and successes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.


It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.

See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
Click to expand...



The Jews were to obtain a National Homeland.


----------



## Fishlore

Passions over Israel are so intense in America that no reasonable conversation seems to be possible. This is not the case in the rest of the world, a factor of increasing importance as America's role as colonial administrator in Palestine fades into history and the global economy transforms the relative power of non-Western nations at the UN.

In the West, we see the Palestinian issue through the lens of Bible myths and guilt over our centuries as the principal persecutor of Jews on the planet. In the USA this lens is magnified by the gigantic, disproportionate wealth and influence of Jews (less than 2%) in the country. Arab peoples have the additional disadvantage of long-standing resistance, often through terrorism to Western influence. What most of don't realize is the the vast majority of the world's peoples and their governments see the Palestinian conflict from a very different point of view than our own.

This new point of view is still only hazily grasped by most Americans. Phrases like "the new global economy" and "the rise of China" allude to a much broader and deeper transformation that is already making the twenty-first century different from the one before it. We ain't seen nuthin' yet.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were to obtain a National Homeland.
Click to expand...


...in Palestine. Under British rule/domination.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were to obtain a National Homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...in Palestine. Under British rule/domination.
Click to expand...


Until they were capable of achieving independence and self-rule.  Which they did.  And called their nation (after the old one) Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were to obtain a National Homeland.
Click to expand...

You don't know what that means.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You don't know what that means.



Meaning if I don't agree with you I must be stupid or ignorant.  Not to worry, I've been on this board long enough to know exactly what your backwards arguments are.  They are essentially rooted in the idea that the Jewish people don't have rights like other peoples.  And they essentially ignore facts like Israel's existence.  

There can never be a solution for people like you because your base ideology won't allow solutions involving compromise, respect and a little give and take.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is why the Zionist camp has been spending $millions trying to combat it and the Zionist regime calls it a strategic threat...not quite "abject" and still ongoing so not a "failure" either.
Click to expand...







 Yet all we need do is sit back and watch the nations go under that support BDS as their stock markets collapse. While those that oppose BDS see theirs flourish. And not one Jew or Zionist would be implicated in the collapse. As the US did a short while back threaten the seats of learning with having funding cut if they allow BDS in any form to take root in them.

As the left wing rent-a-mob found out in the UK the police will charge them with racism and section 5 offences that could result in them losing their place in uni.


----------



## Phoenall

Fishlore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the issue of mocking the poster not the policy, you shouldn't mock BDS as a failed policy because it hasn't yet been tried and so has neither failed nor succeeded.
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been tried?!
> Whatever validity you had just got blown away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you mean "credibility" not "validity." Hard to tell. BDS has not become the policy of any national government or supra-national organization. The various symbolic protests and calls for divestment have alarmed Likud but had not real effect yet. Sanctions can only be done by sovereign bodies. Significant boycott by international trading partners has yet to occur.
> 
> The day that BDS programs such as those imposed on Iran and North Korea are applied to Israel will, in all likelyhood, never come because once Israel gets the "no kidding" message from the USA, as in "we aren't going to veto the UN resolution," or the EU imposes a boycott on Israeli goods, the state of Israel will back down because Israel cannot survive without continuous outside financial support.
> 
> If you persist in attacking me personally I will have the unhappy choice of replying in kind or ignoring you. Please stick to the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure.
> Lending it's "success" any credibility shows you didn't do your research before asserting it was a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said in post #483 was "There is going to be SBD economic sanction and Israel will not be able to resist that pressure." You might want to not the future tense "going to be." The BDS movement has grown in support and continues to grow. It isn't a "failure" it is a "proposal."
> 
> There are are only two alternatives to BDS. One is to walk away and leave Likud with the fruits of its illegal aggression, including millions of stateless Palestinians, in violation of UN resolutions and US policy. The other is war. No one can predicte the future; however, SBD seems the most likely of the three.
Click to expand...







 It is going down faster than it can grow as pressure is brought on the seat of the movement. Take away the activists means of support and income and they will soon stop following a failing movement. The colleges and universities are losing funding, and as a result losing their standing in certain fields, and so the circle turns


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were to obtain a National Homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what that means.
Click to expand...





 Do you as it seems you cant read English


Here are the relevant parts that tell you precisely what they mean





The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate



*The Palestine Mandate*​*The Council of the League of Nations:*

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,* to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*; and

*Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917**, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people*, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

*Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country*; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

*Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions*; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:



So you see it clearly states that in 1923 they placed into International law the creation of the Jewish national home ( read state or nation ) within delineated borders.


 So how do you understand the LoN mandate to read then, and where does it say nation of Palestine or Palestinian national home ?


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning if I don't agree with you I must be stupid or ignorant.  Not to worry, I've been on this board long enough to know exactly what your backwards arguments are.  They are essentially rooted in the idea that the Jewish people don't have rights like other peoples.  And they essentially ignore facts like Israel's existence.
> 
> There can never be a solution for people like you because your base ideology won't allow solutions involving compromise, respect and a little give and take.
Click to expand...







 Then he wonders why we see him as a muslim after he tried to hide his false veneer so well. You cant take the culture out of islamic migrants that makes them so aggressive and misogynist.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning if I don't agree with you I must be stupid or ignorant.  Not to worry, I've been on this board long enough to know exactly what your backwards arguments are.  They are essentially rooted in the idea that the Jewish people don't have rights like other peoples.  And they essentially ignore facts like Israel's existence.
> 
> There can never be a solution for people like you because your base ideology won't allow solutions involving compromise, respect and a little give and take.
Click to expand...







 Then he wonders why we see him as a muslim after he tried to hide his false veneer so well. You cant take the culture out of islamic migrants that makes them so aggressive and misogynist.


----------



## Faun

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
Click to expand...

How could anyone back then obtain Palestinian citizenship when there was no country called Palestine?


----------



## Phoenall

Fishlore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sticking to the issue, the BDS movement has been an abject failure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is why the Zionist camp has been spending $millions trying to combat it and the Zionist regime calls it a strategic threat...not quite "abject" and still ongoing so not a "failure" either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why Israelis are inundated with global business contracts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make a good point. Israel is dependent on international trade and aid. Unlike, say, Iran, Israel cannot produce its own energy or food. When the trade and investment from other countries flows, Israel does great because it's high tech industries produce real value added. On the other hand, if international trade is cut off, Israel cannot survive.
> 
> You seem to think that Israel is "inundated" with international business. This is a bit of an overstatement. The global slowdown isn't doing Israel any good and the internal economy has some real problems with low income families and rising costs of food and housing. In any event, Israel is not suffering from BDS because those sanctions, boycotts and disinvestments aren't happening. They are being talked about more and more and the Israeli response is is becoming increasingly shrill, a sure sign that, if applied, BDS would bring Israel to its knees.
> 
> That isn't going to happen because once the threat of BDS becomes imanent, Israel will do whatever is required to prevent BDS from going into effect. Israel's biggest trading partner is not the USA, it is the EU. BDS is not something that the US can block with a veto in the Security Council or anyplace else.
Click to expand...







 And you don't seem to understand that Israel can produce its own food, in fact it can produce a surplus of speciality foods that it can export. Then it has become the number one nation for tech products that the world cant do without, like R.I.S.C chips and their coding. So unless you want the likes of Apple or Intel to go to the wall keep the two way traffic flowing. As for the EU we already have a system in place that is de-fanging the BDS vermin, and they are not a threat anymore.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Israel has to import 80% of the grain it consumes.  Israel is dependent on aid from abroad especially from the U.S. and World Jewry, without it Israel would go under.







 Then why does it export so much of its produce ?

 If Israel goes under it will be after the likes of the USA and EU have already went down the pan, which will be because the arab oil has ran out and the arabs have migrated in their millions.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has to import 80% of the grain it consumes.  Israel is dependent on aid from abroad especially from the U.S. and World Jewry, without it Israel would go under.
> 
> 
> 
> Key phrase..."World Jew"; overwhelmingly educated and successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "World Jewry" has a specific meaning that you may not be familiar with.
Click to expand...







 AND YOU MEANING IS THE ONE COINED BY THE ISLAMONAZI'S AND CATHOLICS IN THE 1930's


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger NEVER makes good points.
> He is an 'anti-cough-zionist' and Not knowledgeable on the conflict...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! You know they're running scared when they post this sort of drivel.
Click to expand...







 Have you not yet realised that we know when you are running scared as you resort to " Zionist this" and " hasbara that "


----------



## Phoenall

Fishlore said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good point. Israel is dependent on international trade and aid. Unlike, say, Iran, Israel cannot produce its own energy or food. When the trade and investment from other countries flows, Israel does great because it's high tech industries produce real value added. On the other hand, if international trade is cut off, Israel cannot survive.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger NEVER makes good points.
> He is an 'anti-cough-zionist' and Not knowledgeable on the conflict, and obviously neither are you.
> 
> Israel has HUGE Natural Gas deposits already in production, and will be exporting them by the end of this year.
> The First signing customer is... the Palestinian Authority.
> ALL the neighbors want some.
> This is such OLD and Ongoing News, but apparently hasn't reached you.
> Google
> If you are not aware of this.. you know NOTHING and are not even in this discussion/section.
> 
> It is using also using that NG for DeSal projects and despite being in good part desert, will be a net exporter of Water.
> Of course - The Inventor of Drip Irrigation - Israel - recycles 80% of it's water, 8x second place Spain.
> 
> Made in Israel: Water
> 
> It is Not dependent on Aid, tho it does help subsidize it's large Defense budget.
> It has one of the best economies on the planet.
> Good luck with a grain embargo. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think that Israel is "inundated" with international business. This is a bit of an overstatement. The global slowdown isn't doing Israel any good and the internal economy has some real problems with low income families and rising costs of food and housing. In any event, Israel is not suffering from BDS because those sanctions, boycotts and disinvestments aren't happening. They are being talked about more and more and the Israeli response is is becoming increasingly shrill, a sure sign that, if applied, BDS would bring Israel to its knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Global slowdown doesn't do anyone any good.
> But Tech cos like Intel Flock to (and are expanding in) Israel for Jewish Brains.
> 
> 
> Also
> Made in Israel – Medicine
> +
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hear you tell it, Israel is producing water faster than when Moses whacked that rock in the desert. With all this wonderful water, why is it they are cutting off water to the Palestinian residents on the West Bank? This is the sort of crime against humanity that got the Germans such bad press in the 1930s.
Click to expand...







 How about a link then showing that they have cut off the water to the palestinians. Or is this the water that they are stealing and allowing to run into the desert. The official figures show that the Israeli's receive 11 litres of water per day per person, and recycle 95% of it. The Palestinians take 40 litres a day per person and recycle none of it.


 If you are going to post blood libels at least give4 the source of your information so we know which sites you are going to


----------



## Phoenall

Faun said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How could anyone back then obtain Palestinian citizenship when there was no country called Palestine?
Click to expand...






 Tinny really needs to learn to read as article 7 says



*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.



 Now where are the arab muslims mentioned ?


----------



## Phoenall

Do you understand what this says, or are you having problems


Fishlore said:


> The tangled history of the conflict is fascinating. What is pretty certain as far into the future as the eye can see is that Israel is not going to go away. Equally obvious is that the four hundred million Arabs backing the Palestinians aren't going away either.
> 
> The situation has gotten into a mess such that the two contending parties, Israel and Palestine, can't or won't solve the problem between themselves. Nothing unusual there; in those periods of peace in the region, the peace has been imposed and enforced by a powerful outside party. Our problem now is that there are various candidate for such a role (USA, Iran, Arab League, Turkey, UN etc.) only one of whom seems likely to be able to get the job.
> 
> The UN is blocked by the USA because our client, Israel is hoping for a lot more land than the UN is likely to give Israel in any peace settlement.  Israel still hopes to bully its way into Eretz Israel with American backing. That isn't going to happen, but until the US sends that message to Likud in clear language backed up by a no-veto threat, innocent women and kids are going to continue to be blown to pieces all over the City of Peace.








 BULLSHIT and islamonazi BLOOD LIBELS


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> From:
> 
> Boycott Israel
> 
> What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?
> 
> You asked this many times before.​
> Indeed, and you have ducked it every time.








 In 1920 when the LoN signed the treaty of Sevres. And you have been told this many times in answer to your question


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you seem to be having so much trouble following the conversation
> 
> Its been well established within the mandate that the Judaic people were entitled to set up governance of a national Jewish homeland anywhere west of the Jordan and within the mandated area.
> 
> You have been shown the Jordan memorandum countless times
> 
> If you are having trouble comprehending it, thats fine, but the document is clear and there can be no doubt that international agreement grants Israel ALL the mandate territory west of the Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> _ "...the Judaic people were entitled..."
> _
> Boy, is that a whopper!
> 
> You move into my neighborhood and think your "entitled" to my home, just because your great, great, great, great, great, grandmother lived there years ago?
Click to expand...







No because your landlord has pulled the rug out from under your feet, kicked you of the land you are illegally squatting on and granted ownership to me. So I am giving you two choices, live in peace with me and you will benefit. Or resort to violence and you will end up running for the hills complaining about having your land stolen, when in reality it was never your land.


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> No because your landlord has pulled the rug out from under your feet, kicked you of the land you are illegally squatting on and granted ownership to me. So I am giving you two choices, live in peace with me and you will benefit. Or resort to violence and you will end up running for the hills complaining about having your land stolen, when in reality it was never your land.


Kicked me_ "...of the land..."?_

Yep, you're 15.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it happened.  But it was done with the caveat that any Jewish homeland, could only be done without prejudicing any of the existing, indigenous, non-Jewish residents, in that area.
> 
> But that's not what happened.  You migrated in (some illegally) with extreme prejudice.
Click to expand...







 Another idiot that tries to back date international laws to suit their POV. What is the cut off date for your back dating then, how about 1700 before you lot arrived in the USA.    Do explain how you are an illegal immigrant when you have been invited to migrate by the land sovereign owner ?


 By the way the proper words are

 The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


 And this means the civil and religious rights as they stood in 1923, not 2015


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
Click to expand...







 Read the mandate of Palestine, and not the British mandate


----------



## Billo_Really

Phoenall said:


> Another idiot that tries to back date international laws to suit their POV. What is the cut off date for your back dating then, how about 1700 before you lot arrived in the USA.    Do explain how you are an illegal immigrant when you have been invited to migrate by the land sovereign owner ?
> 
> 
> By the way the proper words are
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> 
> And this means the civil and religious rights as they stood in 1923, not 2015


Tarzan does not know, where Tarzan go.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because your landlord has pulled the rug out from under your feet, kicked you of the land you are illegally squatting on and granted ownership to me. So I am giving you two choices, live in peace with me and you will benefit. Or resort to violence and you will end up running for the hills complaining about having your land stolen, when in reality it was never your land.
> 
> 
> 
> Kicked me_ "...of the land..."?_
> 
> Yep, you're 15.
Click to expand...







 Read your land deeds and see just what the sovereign owners of your land can do. And what rights you have as opposed to what rights you think you have.


 So the LoN being the sovereign nation can give sovereignty of the land you live on to the Jews and you don't have a say in the matter.  More so when you have no legal rights to the land then or now.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How could anyone back then obtain Palestinian citizenship when there was no country called Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tinny really needs to learn to read as article 7 says
> 
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Now where are the arab muslims mentioned ?
Click to expand...

The Palestinians were already Palestinian citizens. Religion was irrelevant for the natives. It was only used for the colonists.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> 
> Boycott Israel
> 
> What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?
> 
> You asked this many times before.​
> Indeed, and you have ducked it every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1920 when the LoN signed the treaty of Sevres. And you have been told this many times in answer to your question
Click to expand...

The treaty of Sevres was never ratified.


----------



## Phoenall

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot that tries to back date international laws to suit their POV. What is the cut off date for your back dating then, how about 1700 before you lot arrived in the USA.    Do explain how you are an illegal immigrant when you have been invited to migrate by the land sovereign owner ?
> 
> 
> By the way the proper words are
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
> 
> 
> And this means the civil and religious rights as they stood in 1923, not 2015
> 
> 
> 
> Tarzan does not know, where Tarzan go.
Click to expand...






So what laws are you trying to enforce here in your attacks on the Jews, and when did these laws come into being.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because your landlord has pulled the rug out from under your feet, kicked you of the land you are illegally squatting on and granted ownership to me. So I am giving you two choices, live in peace with me and you will benefit. Or resort to violence and you will end up running for the hills complaining about having your land stolen, when in reality it was never your land.
> 
> 
> 
> Kicked me_ "...of the land..."?_
> 
> Yep, you're 15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your land deeds and see just what the sovereign owners of your land can do. And what rights you have as opposed to what rights you think you have.
> 
> 
> So the LoN being the sovereign nation can give sovereignty of the land you live on to the Jews and you don't have a say in the matter.  More so when you have no legal rights to the land then or now.
Click to expand...

So the LoN being the sovereign nation, blah, blah, blah.​
 Do you have a link for that?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> 
> Boycott Israel
> 
> What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?
> 
> You asked this many times before.​
> Indeed, and you have ducked it every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1920 when the LoN signed the treaty of Sevres. And you have been told this many times in answer to your question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The treaty of Sevres was never ratified.
Click to expand...







 TRY AGAIN as it was ratified as part of the Treaty of Lausanne if you bother to read the history of the subject


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the mandate of Palestine, and not the British mandate
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> 
> Boycott Israel
> 
> What territory? When did Israel legally acquire any territory?
> 
> You asked this many times before.​
> Indeed, and you have ducked it every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1920 when the LoN signed the treaty of Sevres. And you have been told this many times in answer to your question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The treaty of Sevres was never ratified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRY AGAIN as it was ratified as part of the Treaty of Lausanne if you bother to read the history of the subject
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Lausanne was different than the Treaty of Sevres.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because your landlord has pulled the rug out from under your feet, kicked you of the land you are illegally squatting on and granted ownership to me. So I am giving you two choices, live in peace with me and you will benefit. Or resort to violence and you will end up running for the hills complaining about having your land stolen, when in reality it was never your land.
> 
> 
> 
> Kicked me_ "...of the land..."?_
> 
> Yep, you're 15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your land deeds and see just what the sovereign owners of your land can do. And what rights you have as opposed to what rights you think you have.
> 
> 
> So the LoN being the sovereign nation can give sovereignty of the land you live on to the Jews and you don't have a say in the matter.  More so when you have no legal rights to the land then or now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the LoN being the sovereign nation, blah, blah, blah.​
> Do you have a link for that?
Click to expand...






 Treaty of Sevres, Treaty of Lausanne and the mandate of Palestine ( not to be confused with the British mandate )


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the mandate of Palestine, and not the British mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...









The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the mandate of Palestine, and not the British mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
Click to expand...

Read it. What do you think it says?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the explicit assignment of at least some territory to the Jewish people for a National Homeland in Palestine didn't actually happen is one of the more ridiculous anti-Israel arguments ever.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the mandate of Palestine, and not the British mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it. What do you think it says?
Click to expand...






*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

*Exactly what is written there, that the Jews migrating legally to Palestine will be granted Palestinian citizenship under the mandate. It does not mention any arab muslims.*

* But the mandate is not just this one article, it is many others combined and some say*


* 
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of **Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations**, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and *

*Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917**, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of** the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish pe**ople, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and *

*Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical** connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country**; and *

*Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and *

*Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and *

*Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and *

*Whereas by the afore-mentioned **Article 22** (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;


*
No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that no land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to obtain Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens inside Palestine, they would have the right to live anywhere in Palestine. It is a different story for those who are not Palestinian citizens.
> 
> See article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the mandate of Palestine, and not the British mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it. What do you think it says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> *Exactly what is written there, that the Jews migrating legally to Palestine will be granted Palestinian citizenship under the mandate. It does not mention any arab muslims.*
> 
> * But the mandate is not just this one article, it is many others combined and some say*
> 
> 
> *
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of **Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations**, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917**, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of** the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish pe**ople, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and *
> 
> *Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical** connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country**; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and *
> 
> *Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and *
> 
> *Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and *
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned **Article 22** (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> 
> *
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again
Click to expand...

No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again​
Why are you trying to inject irrelevance into the conversation?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the mandate of Palestine, and not the British mandate
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it. What do you think it says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> *Exactly what is written there, that the Jews migrating legally to Palestine will be granted Palestinian citizenship under the mandate. It does not mention any arab muslims.*
> 
> * But the mandate is not just this one article, it is many others combined and some say*
> 
> 
> *
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of **Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations**, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917**, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of** the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish pe**ople, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and *
> 
> *Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical** connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country**; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and *
> 
> *Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and *
> 
> *Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and *
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned **Article 22** (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> 
> *
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again​
> Why are you trying to inject irrelevance into the conversation?
Click to expand...







No just reality, care to show where the arab muslims are mentioned in the mandate of Palestine, as the Jews are mentioned many times. Only the Jews were to be afforded Palestinian citizenship, only Jews were invited to migrate and colonise and only the Jews were to be given a national home.

 So if the omission of arab muslims is an irrelevance then their claims and your are just as much an irrelevance


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it. What do you think it says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> *Exactly what is written there, that the Jews migrating legally to Palestine will be granted Palestinian citizenship under the mandate. It does not mention any arab muslims.*
> 
> * But the mandate is not just this one article, it is many others combined and some say*
> 
> 
> *
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of **Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations**, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917**, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of** the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish pe**ople, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and *
> 
> *Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical** connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country**; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and *
> 
> *Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and *
> 
> *Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and *
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned **Article 22** (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> 
> *
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again​
> Why are you trying to inject irrelevance into the conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No just reality, care to show where the arab muslims are mentioned in the mandate of Palestine, as the Jews are mentioned many times. Only the Jews were to be afforded Palestinian citizenship, only Jews were invited to migrate and colonise and only the Jews were to be given a national home.
> 
> So if the omission of arab muslims is an irrelevance then their claims and your are just as much an irrelevance
Click to expand...

The Palestinians were already citizens of Palestine. If they were Arab or not did not matter. If they were Muslim or not did not matter.

Your question is irrelevant. You are just trying to make something out of nothing.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> Read it. What do you think it says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> *Exactly what is written there, that the Jews migrating legally to Palestine will be granted Palestinian citizenship under the mandate. It does not mention any arab muslims.*
> 
> * But the mandate is not just this one article, it is many others combined and some say*
> 
> 
> *
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of **Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations**, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917**, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of** the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish pe**ople, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and *
> 
> *Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical** connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country**; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and *
> 
> *Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and *
> 
> *Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and *
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned **Article 22** (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> 
> *
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again​
> Why are you trying to inject irrelevance into the conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No just reality, care to show where the arab muslims are mentioned in the mandate of Palestine, as the Jews are mentioned many times. Only the Jews were to be afforded Palestinian citizenship, only Jews were invited to migrate and colonise and only the Jews were to be given a national home.
> 
> So if the omission of arab muslims is an irrelevance then their claims and your are just as much an irrelevance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were already citizens of Palestine. If they were Arab or not did not matter. If they were Muslim or not did not matter.
> 
> Your question is irrelevant. You are just trying to make something out of nothing.
Click to expand...





 Then you will be able to provide evidence of this wont you as the arab muslims called themselves Syrians, the Christians called them Christians and the Jews were called Palestinians as an insult. There was no nation of Palestine prior to 1988 for anyone to be a citizen of, and the mandate made them citizens of the mandatory power which was British Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read it. What do you think it says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> *Exactly what is written there, that the Jews migrating legally to Palestine will be granted Palestinian citizenship under the mandate. It does not mention any arab muslims.*
> 
> * But the mandate is not just this one article, it is many others combined and some say*
> 
> 
> *
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of **Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations**, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917**, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of** the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish pe**ople, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and *
> 
> *Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical** connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country**; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and *
> 
> *Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and *
> 
> *Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and *
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned **Article 22** (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> 
> *
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again​
> Why are you trying to inject irrelevance into the conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No just reality, care to show where the arab muslims are mentioned in the mandate of Palestine, as the Jews are mentioned many times. Only the Jews were to be afforded Palestinian citizenship, only Jews were invited to migrate and colonise and only the Jews were to be given a national home.
> 
> So if the omission of arab muslims is an irrelevance then their claims and your are just as much an irrelevance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were already citizens of Palestine. If they were Arab or not did not matter. If they were Muslim or not did not matter.
> 
> Your question is irrelevant. You are just trying to make something out of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will be able to provide evidence of this wont you as the arab muslims called themselves Syrians, the Christians called them Christians and the Jews were called Palestinians as an insult. There was no nation of Palestine prior to 1988 for anyone to be a citizen of, and the mandate made them citizens of the mandatory power which was British Palestine.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to make a point?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ART. 7.*
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> *Exactly what is written there, that the Jews migrating legally to Palestine will be granted Palestinian citizenship under the mandate. It does not mention any arab muslims.*
> 
> * But the mandate is not just this one article, it is many others combined and some say*
> 
> 
> *
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of **Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations**, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the **declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917**, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of** the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish pe**ople, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and *
> 
> *Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical** connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country**; and *
> 
> *Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and *
> 
> *Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and *
> 
> *Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and *
> 
> *Whereas by the afore-mentioned **Article 22** (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> 
> *
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again
> 
> 
> 
> No mention of arab muslims in the mandate if you look, so you lose again​
> Why are you trying to inject irrelevance into the conversation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No just reality, care to show where the arab muslims are mentioned in the mandate of Palestine, as the Jews are mentioned many times. Only the Jews were to be afforded Palestinian citizenship, only Jews were invited to migrate and colonise and only the Jews were to be given a national home.
> 
> So if the omission of arab muslims is an irrelevance then their claims and your are just as much an irrelevance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were already citizens of Palestine. If they were Arab or not did not matter. If they were Muslim or not did not matter.
> 
> Your question is irrelevant. You are just trying to make something out of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will be able to provide evidence of this wont you as the arab muslims called themselves Syrians, the Christians called them Christians and the Jews were called Palestinians as an insult. There was no nation of Palestine prior to 1988 for anyone to be a citizen of, and the mandate made them citizens of the mandatory power which was British Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you trying to make a point?
Click to expand...







 I think I have made my point going on your reply, and you have no answer to the facts and reality do you.


----------



## Challenger

P F Tinmore said:


> Are you trying to make a point?



Oh come on, it's Phoney, trolling as usual as he can't do anything else.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make a point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on, it's Phoney, trolling as usual as he can't do anything else.
Click to expand...







 Once again you cant come up with a valid intelligent answer so resort to the book of disinformation to help you out. You do realise that more mud sticks on the thrower than on the target don't you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The never answered question.

*ARTICLE 1*

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
It is said that the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1948 was invalid because Israel already declared independence and already defined its territory.

So.

What/where was Israel's defined territory in 1948?

How did Palestine's defined territory encroach on Israel's defined territory?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> The never answered question.
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> It is said that the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1948 was invalid because Israel already declared independence and already defined its territory.
> 
> So.
> 
> What/where was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
> 
> How did Palestine's defined territory encroach on Israel's defined territory?








 As defined by the mandate of Palestine and un res 181.

 What was palestines defined territory other than the ambiguous to the north and to the south. That could mean to the north pole and to the south pole


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> It is said that the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1948 was invalid because Israel already declared independence and already defined its territory.
> 
> So.
> 
> What/where was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
> 
> How did Palestine's defined territory encroach on Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the mandate of Palestine and un res 181.
> 
> What was palestines defined territory other than the ambiguous to the north and to the south. That could mean to the north pole and to the south pole
Click to expand...

There was no resolution 181. It was never implemented.

And besides, when did Israel define those as their borders?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> It is said that the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1948 was invalid because Israel already declared independence and already defined its territory.
> 
> So.
> 
> What/where was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
> 
> How did Palestine's defined territory encroach on Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the mandate of Palestine and un res 181.
> 
> What was palestines defined territory other than the ambiguous to the north and to the south. That could mean to the north pole and to the south pole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no resolution 181. It was never implemented.
> 
> And besides, when did Israel define those as their borders?
Click to expand...






The official UN records says it was, and your source is a proven liar.   So who is to believed the official records or the lies of an islamonazi terrorist scumbag ?

I'm may 1948 if you read the real reports, and not rely on islamonazi LIES




Now again what was the Palestinians defined territory in their declaration ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> It is said that the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1948 was invalid because Israel already declared independence and already defined its territory.
> 
> So.
> 
> What/where was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
> 
> How did Palestine's defined territory encroach on Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the mandate of Palestine and un res 181.
> 
> What was palestines defined territory other than the ambiguous to the north and to the south. That could mean to the north pole and to the south pole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no resolution 181. It was never implemented.
> 
> And besides, when did Israel define those as their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official UN records says it was, and your source is a proven liar.   So who is to believed the official records or the lies of an islamonazi terrorist scumbag ?
> 
> I'm may 1948 if you read the real reports, and not rely on islamonazi LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now again what was the Palestinians defined territory in their declaration ?
Click to expand...

Palestine defined its territory inside its international borders.

What territory did Israel define?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> It is said that the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1948 was invalid because Israel already declared independence and already defined its territory.
> 
> So.
> 
> What/where was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
> 
> How did Palestine's defined territory encroach on Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the mandate of Palestine and un res 181.
> 
> What was palestines defined territory other than the ambiguous to the north and to the south. That could mean to the north pole and to the south pole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no resolution 181. It was never implemented.
> 
> And besides, when did Israel define those as their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official UN records says it was, and your source is a proven liar.   So who is to believed the official records or the lies of an islamonazi terrorist scumbag ?
> 
> I'm may 1948 if you read the real reports, and not rely on islamonazi LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now again what was the Palestinians defined territory in their declaration ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine defined its territory inside its international borders.
> 
> What territory did Israel define?
Click to expand...






Which international borders are those then, under what treaty where they agreed and who signed for them on behalf of Israel, Jordan and Egypt ?

I have searched the internet and cant find any mention of a state of Palestine having international borders. What I do find is the islamonazi misconception that the borders of the mandate of Palestine are the borders of the state of Palestine.


 The land given to them in 1923 that delineated the borders of Jewish Palestine under the same treaty that delineated the borders of trans jordan


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> It is said that the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1948 was invalid because Israel already declared independence and already defined its territory.
> 
> So.
> 
> What/where was Israel's defined territory in 1948?
> 
> How did Palestine's defined territory encroach on Israel's defined territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the mandate of Palestine and un res 181.
> 
> What was palestines defined territory other than the ambiguous to the north and to the south. That could mean to the north pole and to the south pole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no resolution 181. It was never implemented.
> 
> And besides, when did Israel define those as their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official UN records says it was, and your source is a proven liar.   So who is to believed the official records or the lies of an islamonazi terrorist scumbag ?
> 
> I'm may 1948 if you read the real reports, and not rely on islamonazi LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now again what was the Palestinians defined territory in their declaration ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine defined its territory inside its international borders.
> 
> What territory did Israel define?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which international borders are those then, under what treaty where they agreed and who signed for them on behalf of Israel, Jordan and Egypt ?
> 
> I have searched the internet and cant find any mention of a state of Palestine having international borders. What I do find is the islamonazi misconception that the borders of the mandate of Palestine are the borders of the state of Palestine.
> 
> 
> The land given to them in 1923 that delineated the borders of Jewish Palestine under the same treaty that delineated the borders of trans jordan
Click to expand...

Palestine's international borders are referenced in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

BTW, that was after the Mandate left Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As defined by the mandate of Palestine and un res 181.
> 
> What was palestines defined territory other than the ambiguous to the north and to the south. That could mean to the north pole and to the south pole
> 
> 
> 
> There was no resolution 181. It was never implemented.
> 
> And besides, when did Israel define those as their borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official UN records says it was, and your source is a proven liar.   So who is to believed the official records or the lies of an islamonazi terrorist scumbag ?
> 
> I'm may 1948 if you read the real reports, and not rely on islamonazi LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now again what was the Palestinians defined territory in their declaration ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine defined its territory inside its international borders.
> 
> What territory did Israel define?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which international borders are those then, under what treaty where they agreed and who signed for them on behalf of Israel, Jordan and Egypt ?
> 
> I have searched the internet and cant find any mention of a state of Palestine having international borders. What I do find is the islamonazi misconception that the borders of the mandate of Palestine are the borders of the state of Palestine.
> 
> 
> The land given to them in 1923 that delineated the borders of Jewish Palestine under the same treaty that delineated the borders of trans jordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international borders are referenced in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
> 
> BTW, that was after the Mandate left Palestine.
Click to expand...







 Those where the mandate of Palestine's borders if you look again, as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.   You lose again

No the British left Palestine the Mandate is still in place, once again you confuse the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate.
 Another loss to you


Now show where the international borders of the nation of Palestine were delineated by treaty, and not the mandate of Palestine borders. Also the borders of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are not the borders of the nation of Palestine until the P.A. agrees them with those neighbours


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no resolution 181. It was never implemented.
> 
> And besides, when did Israel define those as their borders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official UN records says it was, and your source is a proven liar.   So who is to believed the official records or the lies of an islamonazi terrorist scumbag ?
> 
> I'm may 1948 if you read the real reports, and not rely on islamonazi LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now again what was the Palestinians defined territory in their declaration ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine defined its territory inside its international borders.
> 
> What territory did Israel define?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which international borders are those then, under what treaty where they agreed and who signed for them on behalf of Israel, Jordan and Egypt ?
> 
> I have searched the internet and cant find any mention of a state of Palestine having international borders. What I do find is the islamonazi misconception that the borders of the mandate of Palestine are the borders of the state of Palestine.
> 
> 
> The land given to them in 1923 that delineated the borders of Jewish Palestine under the same treaty that delineated the borders of trans jordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international borders are referenced in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
> 
> BTW, that was after the Mandate left Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those where the mandate of Palestine's borders if you look again, as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.   You lose again
> 
> No the British left Palestine the Mandate is still in place, once again you confuse the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate.
> Another loss to you
> 
> 
> Now show where the international borders of the nation of Palestine were delineated by treaty, and not the mandate of Palestine borders. Also the borders of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are not the borders of the nation of Palestine until the P.A. agrees them with those neighbours
Click to expand...

The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders.

In the case of Palestine, nationality is relevant to international law because, chiefly, “the status of the inhabitants of Mandated... Territories cannot be a domestic question”. The international nature of Palestinian nationality is derived not only from* the fact that the “Mandatory does not have sovereignty over territory”*, but from the many international factors inherited with in that nationality. These factors include : the mandate as an international system, the involvement of the League of Nations; state succession; the recognition of Palestinian nationality by other states; the diplomatic protection afforded to Palestinians abroad; naturalization of foreigners; immigration and return; the effects of multilateral nationality conventions in Palestine; and the ultimate role of the United Nations in defining the nationality in the country.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The official UN records says it was, and your source is a proven liar.   So who is to believed the official records or the lies of an islamonazi terrorist scumbag ?
> 
> I'm may 1948 if you read the real reports, and not rely on islamonazi LIES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now again what was the Palestinians defined territory in their declaration ?
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine defined its territory inside its international borders.
> 
> What territory did Israel define?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which international borders are those then, under what treaty where they agreed and who signed for them on behalf of Israel, Jordan and Egypt ?
> 
> I have searched the internet and cant find any mention of a state of Palestine having international borders. What I do find is the islamonazi misconception that the borders of the mandate of Palestine are the borders of the state of Palestine.
> 
> 
> The land given to them in 1923 that delineated the borders of Jewish Palestine under the same treaty that delineated the borders of trans jordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international borders are referenced in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
> 
> BTW, that was after the Mandate left Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those where the mandate of Palestine's borders if you look again, as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.   You lose again
> 
> No the British left Palestine the Mandate is still in place, once again you confuse the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate.
> Another loss to you
> 
> 
> Now show where the international borders of the nation of Palestine were delineated by treaty, and not the mandate of Palestine borders. Also the borders of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are not the borders of the nation of Palestine until the P.A. agrees them with those neighbours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders.
> 
> In the case of Palestine, nationality is relevant to international law because, chiefly, “the status of the inhabitants of Mandated... Territories cannot be a domestic question”. The international nature of Palestinian nationality is derived not only from* the fact that the “Mandatory does not have sovereignty over territory”*, but from the many international factors inherited with in that nationality. These factors include : the mandate as an international system, the involvement of the League of Nations; state succession; the recognition of Palestinian nationality by other states; the diplomatic protection afforded to Palestinians abroad; naturalization of foreigners; immigration and return; the effects of multilateral nationality conventions in Palestine; and the ultimate role of the United Nations in defining the nationality in the country.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​
Click to expand...







Once again you confuse the British madate with the mandate of Palestine. Or is this deliberate because to admit the Mandate of palestune is to admit that the Jews own 22% of it under international law.

 Your link is invalid as it has been shown to be propaganda, lies and blood libels . It is the author of your link that is filling your head with rubbish and brainwashing an already challenged mentality into believing that the LoN did not exist, the Ottomans/Turks did not surrender and they did not pass on sovereignty to the LoN.




 The British mandate was a temporarily assigned administration that was answerable to the LoN who implemented the mandate system back in 1917.The actual mandate of Palestine was an entity as was the other mandates in place. Or are you now saying that all the muslim nations in the M.E. have no more validity than you declare Israel has ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine defined its territory inside its international borders.
> 
> What territory did Israel define?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which international borders are those then, under what treaty where they agreed and who signed for them on behalf of Israel, Jordan and Egypt ?
> 
> I have searched the internet and cant find any mention of a state of Palestine having international borders. What I do find is the islamonazi misconception that the borders of the mandate of Palestine are the borders of the state of Palestine.
> 
> 
> The land given to them in 1923 that delineated the borders of Jewish Palestine under the same treaty that delineated the borders of trans jordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine's international borders are referenced in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
> 
> BTW, that was after the Mandate left Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those where the mandate of Palestine's borders if you look again, as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.   You lose again
> 
> No the British left Palestine the Mandate is still in place, once again you confuse the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate.
> Another loss to you
> 
> 
> Now show where the international borders of the nation of Palestine were delineated by treaty, and not the mandate of Palestine borders. Also the borders of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are not the borders of the nation of Palestine until the P.A. agrees them with those neighbours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders.
> 
> In the case of Palestine, nationality is relevant to international law because, chiefly, “the status of the inhabitants of Mandated... Territories cannot be a domestic question”. The international nature of Palestinian nationality is derived not only from* the fact that the “Mandatory does not have sovereignty over territory”*, but from the many international factors inherited with in that nationality. These factors include : the mandate as an international system, the involvement of the League of Nations; state succession; the recognition of Palestinian nationality by other states; the diplomatic protection afforded to Palestinians abroad; naturalization of foreigners; immigration and return; the effects of multilateral nationality conventions in Palestine; and the ultimate role of the United Nations in defining the nationality in the country.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse the British madate with the mandate of Palestine. Or is this deliberate because to admit the Mandate of palestune is to admit that the Jews own 22% of it under international law.
> 
> Your link is invalid as it has been shown to be propaganda, lies and blood libels . It is the author of your link that is filling your head with rubbish and brainwashing an already challenged mentality into believing that the LoN did not exist, the Ottomans/Turks did not surrender and they did not pass on sovereignty to the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British mandate was a temporarily assigned administration that was answerable to the LoN who implemented the mandate system back in 1917.The actual mandate of Palestine was an entity as was the other mandates in place. Or are you now saying that all the muslim nations in the M.E. have no more validity than you declare Israel has ?
Click to expand...

Where do you get this shit?

Seriously, Where do you get this shit?

Nice deflection though.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which international borders are those then, under what treaty where they agreed and who signed for them on behalf of Israel, Jordan and Egypt ?
> 
> I have searched the internet and cant find any mention of a state of Palestine having international borders. What I do find is the islamonazi misconception that the borders of the mandate of Palestine are the borders of the state of Palestine.
> 
> 
> The land given to them in 1923 that delineated the borders of Jewish Palestine under the same treaty that delineated the borders of trans jordan
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's international borders are referenced in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
> 
> BTW, that was after the Mandate left Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those where the mandate of Palestine's borders if you look again, as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.   You lose again
> 
> No the British left Palestine the Mandate is still in place, once again you confuse the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate.
> Another loss to you
> 
> 
> Now show where the international borders of the nation of Palestine were delineated by treaty, and not the mandate of Palestine borders. Also the borders of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are not the borders of the nation of Palestine until the P.A. agrees them with those neighbours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders.
> 
> In the case of Palestine, nationality is relevant to international law because, chiefly, “the status of the inhabitants of Mandated... Territories cannot be a domestic question”. The international nature of Palestinian nationality is derived not only from* the fact that the “Mandatory does not have sovereignty over territory”*, but from the many international factors inherited with in that nationality. These factors include : the mandate as an international system, the involvement of the League of Nations; state succession; the recognition of Palestinian nationality by other states; the diplomatic protection afforded to Palestinians abroad; naturalization of foreigners; immigration and return; the effects of multilateral nationality conventions in Palestine; and the ultimate role of the United Nations in defining the nationality in the country.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse the British madate with the mandate of Palestine. Or is this deliberate because to admit the Mandate of palestune is to admit that the Jews own 22% of it under international law.
> 
> Your link is invalid as it has been shown to be propaganda, lies and blood libels . It is the author of your link that is filling your head with rubbish and brainwashing an already challenged mentality into believing that the LoN did not exist, the Ottomans/Turks did not surrender and they did not pass on sovereignty to the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British mandate was a temporarily assigned administration that was answerable to the LoN who implemented the mandate system back in 1917.The actual mandate of Palestine was an entity as was the other mandates in place. Or are you now saying that all the muslim nations in the M.E. have no more validity than you declare Israel has ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Seriously, Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Nice deflection though.
Click to expand...






 From the LoN archives, the UN archives and historical documents. The LoN set up 4 (5) mandates in the M.E. and appointed mandatories to oversee the peoples striving for free determination and the ability to stand on their own. You believe that there was only 1 mandate and that was the British mandate. The British were just appointed overseer's of the mandate of Palestine which included Jordan as the arab Palestine. That part of Palestine was not signed of until 1946 and handed to Jordan as its people showed the had free determination and could stand alone.

 You deny everything that is in Israel's and the Jews favour forgetting that the same treaties and international law apply in the arab muslims favour as well


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine's international borders are referenced in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
> 
> BTW, that was after the Mandate left Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those where the mandate of Palestine's borders if you look again, as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.   You lose again
> 
> No the British left Palestine the Mandate is still in place, once again you confuse the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate.
> Another loss to you
> 
> 
> Now show where the international borders of the nation of Palestine were delineated by treaty, and not the mandate of Palestine borders. Also the borders of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are not the borders of the nation of Palestine until the P.A. agrees them with those neighbours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders.
> 
> In the case of Palestine, nationality is relevant to international law because, chiefly, “the status of the inhabitants of Mandated... Territories cannot be a domestic question”. The international nature of Palestinian nationality is derived not only from* the fact that the “Mandatory does not have sovereignty over territory”*, but from the many international factors inherited with in that nationality. These factors include : the mandate as an international system, the involvement of the League of Nations; state succession; the recognition of Palestinian nationality by other states; the diplomatic protection afforded to Palestinians abroad; naturalization of foreigners; immigration and return; the effects of multilateral nationality conventions in Palestine; and the ultimate role of the United Nations in defining the nationality in the country.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse the British madate with the mandate of Palestine. Or is this deliberate because to admit the Mandate of palestune is to admit that the Jews own 22% of it under international law.
> 
> Your link is invalid as it has been shown to be propaganda, lies and blood libels . It is the author of your link that is filling your head with rubbish and brainwashing an already challenged mentality into believing that the LoN did not exist, the Ottomans/Turks did not surrender and they did not pass on sovereignty to the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British mandate was a temporarily assigned administration that was answerable to the LoN who implemented the mandate system back in 1917.The actual mandate of Palestine was an entity as was the other mandates in place. Or are you now saying that all the muslim nations in the M.E. have no more validity than you declare Israel has ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Seriously, Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Nice deflection though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN archives, the UN archives and historical documents. The LoN set up 4 (5) mandates in the M.E. and appointed mandatories to oversee the peoples striving for free determination and the ability to stand on their own. You believe that there was only 1 mandate and that was the British mandate. The British were just appointed overseer's of the mandate of Palestine which included Jordan as the arab Palestine. That part of Palestine was not signed of until 1946 and handed to Jordan as its people showed the had free determination and could stand alone.
> 
> You deny everything that is in Israel's and the Jews favour forgetting that the same treaties and international law apply in the arab muslims favour as well
Click to expand...

Jordan as the arab Palestine​
Could you quote the passage that says that and provide the link?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those where the mandate of Palestine's borders if you look again, as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.   You lose again
> 
> No the British left Palestine the Mandate is still in place, once again you confuse the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate.
> Another loss to you
> 
> 
> Now show where the international borders of the nation of Palestine were delineated by treaty, and not the mandate of Palestine borders. Also the borders of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are not the borders of the nation of Palestine until the P.A. agrees them with those neighbours
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders.
> 
> In the case of Palestine, nationality is relevant to international law because, chiefly, “the status of the inhabitants of Mandated... Territories cannot be a domestic question”. The international nature of Palestinian nationality is derived not only from* the fact that the “Mandatory does not have sovereignty over territory”*, but from the many international factors inherited with in that nationality. These factors include : the mandate as an international system, the involvement of the League of Nations; state succession; the recognition of Palestinian nationality by other states; the diplomatic protection afforded to Palestinians abroad; naturalization of foreigners; immigration and return; the effects of multilateral nationality conventions in Palestine; and the ultimate role of the United Nations in defining the nationality in the country.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse the British madate with the mandate of Palestine. Or is this deliberate because to admit the Mandate of palestune is to admit that the Jews own 22% of it under international law.
> 
> Your link is invalid as it has been shown to be propaganda, lies and blood libels . It is the author of your link that is filling your head with rubbish and brainwashing an already challenged mentality into believing that the LoN did not exist, the Ottomans/Turks did not surrender and they did not pass on sovereignty to the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British mandate was a temporarily assigned administration that was answerable to the LoN who implemented the mandate system back in 1917.The actual mandate of Palestine was an entity as was the other mandates in place. Or are you now saying that all the muslim nations in the M.E. have no more validity than you declare Israel has ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Seriously, Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Nice deflection though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN archives, the UN archives and historical documents. The LoN set up 4 (5) mandates in the M.E. and appointed mandatories to oversee the peoples striving for free determination and the ability to stand on their own. You believe that there was only 1 mandate and that was the British mandate. The British were just appointed overseer's of the mandate of Palestine which included Jordan as the arab Palestine. That part of Palestine was not signed of until 1946 and handed to Jordan as its people showed the had free determination and could stand alone.
> 
> You deny everything that is in Israel's and the Jews favour forgetting that the same treaties and international law apply in the arab muslims favour as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan as the arab Palestine​
> Could you quote the passage that says that and provide the link?
Click to expand...






 Mandate of Palestine.    or haven't you been able to understand it yet when it talks about the creation of transjordan


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no land or borders.
> 
> In the case of Palestine, nationality is relevant to international law because, chiefly, “the status of the inhabitants of Mandated... Territories cannot be a domestic question”. The international nature of Palestinian nationality is derived not only from* the fact that the “Mandatory does not have sovereignty over territory”*, but from the many international factors inherited with in that nationality. These factors include : the mandate as an international system, the involvement of the League of Nations; state succession; the recognition of Palestinian nationality by other states; the diplomatic protection afforded to Palestinians abroad; naturalization of foreigners; immigration and return; the effects of multilateral nationality conventions in Palestine; and the ultimate role of the United Nations in defining the nationality in the country.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse the British madate with the mandate of Palestine. Or is this deliberate because to admit the Mandate of palestune is to admit that the Jews own 22% of it under international law.
> 
> Your link is invalid as it has been shown to be propaganda, lies and blood libels . It is the author of your link that is filling your head with rubbish and brainwashing an already challenged mentality into believing that the LoN did not exist, the Ottomans/Turks did not surrender and they did not pass on sovereignty to the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British mandate was a temporarily assigned administration that was answerable to the LoN who implemented the mandate system back in 1917.The actual mandate of Palestine was an entity as was the other mandates in place. Or are you now saying that all the muslim nations in the M.E. have no more validity than you declare Israel has ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Seriously, Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Nice deflection though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN archives, the UN archives and historical documents. The LoN set up 4 (5) mandates in the M.E. and appointed mandatories to oversee the peoples striving for free determination and the ability to stand on their own. You believe that there was only 1 mandate and that was the British mandate. The British were just appointed overseer's of the mandate of Palestine which included Jordan as the arab Palestine. That part of Palestine was not signed of until 1946 and handed to Jordan as its people showed the had free determination and could stand alone.
> 
> You deny everything that is in Israel's and the Jews favour forgetting that the same treaties and international law apply in the arab muslims favour as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan as the arab Palestine​
> Could you quote the passage that says that and provide the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate of Palestine.    or haven't you been able to understand it yet when it talks about the creation of transjordan
Click to expand...

That does not answer the question.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse the British madate with the mandate of Palestine. Or is this deliberate because to admit the Mandate of palestune is to admit that the Jews own 22% of it under international law.
> 
> Your link is invalid as it has been shown to be propaganda, lies and blood libels . It is the author of your link that is filling your head with rubbish and brainwashing an already challenged mentality into believing that the LoN did not exist, the Ottomans/Turks did not surrender and they did not pass on sovereignty to the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British mandate was a temporarily assigned administration that was answerable to the LoN who implemented the mandate system back in 1917.The actual mandate of Palestine was an entity as was the other mandates in place. Or are you now saying that all the muslim nations in the M.E. have no more validity than you declare Israel has ?
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Seriously, Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Nice deflection though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN archives, the UN archives and historical documents. The LoN set up 4 (5) mandates in the M.E. and appointed mandatories to oversee the peoples striving for free determination and the ability to stand on their own. You believe that there was only 1 mandate and that was the British mandate. The British were just appointed overseer's of the mandate of Palestine which included Jordan as the arab Palestine. That part of Palestine was not signed of until 1946 and handed to Jordan as its people showed the had free determination and could stand alone.
> 
> You deny everything that is in Israel's and the Jews favour forgetting that the same treaties and international law apply in the arab muslims favour as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan as the arab Palestine​
> Could you quote the passage that says that and provide the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate of Palestine.    or haven't you been able to understand it yet when it talks about the creation of transjordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not answer the question.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does. All of this has been addressed and presented to you before.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Seriously, Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Nice deflection though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN archives, the UN archives and historical documents. The LoN set up 4 (5) mandates in the M.E. and appointed mandatories to oversee the peoples striving for free determination and the ability to stand on their own. You believe that there was only 1 mandate and that was the British mandate. The British were just appointed overseer's of the mandate of Palestine which included Jordan as the arab Palestine. That part of Palestine was not signed of until 1946 and handed to Jordan as its people showed the had free determination and could stand alone.
> 
> You deny everything that is in Israel's and the Jews favour forgetting that the same treaties and international law apply in the arab muslims favour as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan as the arab Palestine​
> Could you quote the passage that says that and provide the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate of Palestine.    or haven't you been able to understand it yet when it talks about the creation of transjordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it does. All of this has been addressed and presented to you before.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Where is Transjordan called Arab Palestine?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you confuse the British madate with the mandate of Palestine. Or is this deliberate because to admit the Mandate of palestune is to admit that the Jews own 22% of it under international law.
> 
> Your link is invalid as it has been shown to be propaganda, lies and blood libels . It is the author of your link that is filling your head with rubbish and brainwashing an already challenged mentality into believing that the LoN did not exist, the Ottomans/Turks did not surrender and they did not pass on sovereignty to the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British mandate was a temporarily assigned administration that was answerable to the LoN who implemented the mandate system back in 1917.The actual mandate of Palestine was an entity as was the other mandates in place. Or are you now saying that all the muslim nations in the M.E. have no more validity than you declare Israel has ?
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Seriously, Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Nice deflection though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN archives, the UN archives and historical documents. The LoN set up 4 (5) mandates in the M.E. and appointed mandatories to oversee the peoples striving for free determination and the ability to stand on their own. You believe that there was only 1 mandate and that was the British mandate. The British were just appointed overseer's of the mandate of Palestine which included Jordan as the arab Palestine. That part of Palestine was not signed of until 1946 and handed to Jordan as its people showed the had free determination and could stand alone.
> 
> You deny everything that is in Israel's and the Jews favour forgetting that the same treaties and international law apply in the arab muslims favour as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan as the arab Palestine​
> Could you quote the passage that says that and provide the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate of Palestine.    or haven't you been able to understand it yet when it talks about the creation of transjordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not answer the question.
Click to expand...







 Only if you don't like seeing the truth, if you know the truth then it answers your question 100%


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the LoN archives, the UN archives and historical documents. The LoN set up 4 (5) mandates in the M.E. and appointed mandatories to oversee the peoples striving for free determination and the ability to stand on their own. You believe that there was only 1 mandate and that was the British mandate. The British were just appointed overseer's of the mandate of Palestine which included Jordan as the arab Palestine. That part of Palestine was not signed of until 1946 and handed to Jordan as its people showed the had free determination and could stand alone.
> 
> You deny everything that is in Israel's and the Jews favour forgetting that the same treaties and international law apply in the arab muslims favour as well
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan as the arab Palestine​
> Could you quote the passage that says that and provide the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate of Palestine.    or haven't you been able to understand it yet when it talks about the creation of transjordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it does. All of this has been addressed and presented to you before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't. Where is Transjordan called Arab Palestine?
Click to expand...






In the meetings that set up the mandate of Palestine ( not to be confused with the British mandatory ) As I keep telling you, you need to read all the reports on the mandate and not just those touted by islamonazi terrorist propagandists.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan as the arab Palestine​
> Could you quote the passage that says that and provide the link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate of Palestine.    or haven't you been able to understand it yet when it talks about the creation of transjordan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it does. All of this has been addressed and presented to you before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't. Where is Transjordan called Arab Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meetings that set up the mandate of Palestine ( not to be confused with the British mandatory ) As I keep telling you, you need to read all the reports on the mandate and not just those touted by islamonazi terrorist propagandists.
Click to expand...

Which parts do you think I missed?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mandate of Palestine.    or haven't you been able to understand it yet when it talks about the creation of transjordan
> 
> 
> 
> That does not answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it does. All of this has been addressed and presented to you before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't. Where is Transjordan called Arab Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meetings that set up the mandate of Palestine ( not to be confused with the British mandatory ) As I keep telling you, you need to read all the reports on the mandate and not just those touted by islamonazi terrorist propagandists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which parts do you think I missed?
Click to expand...







 All the ones that support and defend the Jews and Israel and work in their favour, you miss so much that you even confuse the legal entity the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate. Two clearly separate and different beasts that are often quoted together as if they are the same thing. Start your education by finding out how many mandates were set up, and where they were in the world. A clue is most were in Africa


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


>









And again all you have is islamonazi talking points from an islamonazi propaganda source, no actual factual information. So rather than face up to your inadequacies and inabilities you deflect away from the points raised.


----------



## P F Tinmore

This was moving off topic in the other thread so I thought I would move it over here.
---------------


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I got the distinct impression that you were suggesting that there was a Palestinian State, recognized for Arab Palestinians in 1932.  Is that not what you were implying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Let's try to be just a little bit objective.
> 
> You are trying to confuse people.  In the late 1930's there was an issue brought before the Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) concerning the status of the Mandatory (Britain) relative to its status as the Government of Palestine.  After the PICJ Judgment, it became commonly accepted that Britain was, acting in its capacity as the Mandatory, was the Government of Palestine.    This was held true up to May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.
> 
> I find it amusing that you would  say in one moment that you don't understand the content, then turn around and use my source.
> 
> View attachment 70963​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.​
> I don't You are the one who brings that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are confused again.  One more time!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Cession:* When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title --- transferring Allied Specified territory, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allies, to the Allied Powers, --- this is called acquisition by cession.  It takes place in favour of such later state, the Allied Powers. "The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war and the ensuing Treaty of Peace."
> See:  Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
> See:  The Acquisition of Title to Territory
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
It confirms almost everything I said.

You stated in one of your posts:


> • The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.



I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?


> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​



And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.


> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​



So, who has the authority to change that?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> This was moving off topic in the other thread so I thought I would move it over here.
> ---------------
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I got the distinct impression that you were suggesting that there was a Palestinian State, recognized for Arab Palestinians in 1932.  Is that not what you were implying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And let's not forget that the US recognized Palestine as a state in 1932."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Let's try to be just a little bit objective.
> 
> You are trying to confuse people.  In the late 1930's there was an issue brought before the Permanent International Court of Justice (PICJ) concerning the status of the Mandatory (Britain) relative to its status as the Government of Palestine.  After the PICJ Judgment, it became commonly accepted that Britain was, acting in its capacity as the Mandatory, was the Government of Palestine.    This was held true up to May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection. This does not respond to my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.
> 
> I find it amusing that you would  say in one moment that you don't understand the content, then turn around and use my source.
> 
> View attachment 70963​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to confuse people with the nuances that distinguish the Government of Palestine (under the Mandate for Palestine) with the 1988 PLO Declaration of Independence that established the State of Palestine.​
> I don't You are the one who brings that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are confused again.  One more time!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You did, however, post some things that confirm my position that Palestine is a state. How the principles of the cession of states were applied by the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Cession:* When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounced all rights and title --- transferring Allied Specified territory, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allies, to the Allied Powers, --- this is called acquisition by cession.  It takes place in favour of such later state, the Allied Powers. "The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war and the ensuing Treaty of Peace."
> See:  Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
> See:  The Acquisition of Title to Territory
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the link. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
> It confirms almost everything I said.
> 
> You stated in one of your posts:
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, who has the authority to change that?
Click to expand...







 Who says it was a successor state then, as it is not mentioned in any LoN treaty as such.


 And the state that the territory was transferred to was the British mandatory, made very clear in the LoN mandate of Palestine.

Under the British mandatory not as a state in its own right, again spelt out in your source and the LoN mandate of palestine


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.



You are just playing word games that have no real life meaning.  What are you trying to say here -- that there wouldn't be a conflict if Israel hadn't named herself Israel, but had called herself "Palestine" instead?  Its silly.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just playing word games that have no real life meaning.  What are you trying to say here -- that there wouldn't be a conflict if Israel hadn't named herself Israel, but had called herself "Palestine" instead?  Its silly.
Click to expand...

*Decisions of international and national tribunals*
The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of *state succession to the "A" Mandates. *The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to *recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the *newly created states that acquired the territory* to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.* It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an *allied successor state.*[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.



P F Tinmore said:


> You stated in one of your posts:
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

First:  This is wrong:  "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."



P F Tinmore said:


> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​


*(COMMENT)*

This is also not quite correct:  "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"

The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate.  NOT (just plain) Palestine.  The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne.  As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government.  And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, who has the authority to change that?


*(COMMENT)*

There is no change.  The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate.  But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is absolutely NOT Correct!



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just playing word games that have no real life meaning.  What are you trying to say here -- that there wouldn't be a conflict if Israel hadn't named herself Israel, but had called herself "Palestine" instead?  Its silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Decisions of international and national tribunals*
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of *state succession to the "A" Mandates. *The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to *recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the *newly created states that acquired the territory* to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.* It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an *allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCEs)*

A05
*Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions (AKA:  Judgment #5) *

Judgment of 26 March 1925 (including the text of the declaration of M. Altamira) *

 PDF*
The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Arlrticle 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules
of Court, has su1)ilii-tted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921, to recognize to their full extent the rigl-its ücquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by hirn with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works
to 1be constructed in Palestine.​
Then, jump to the last page and you will find that in the Judgement of the Court, the claim was valid and  obligations accepted by the Mandatory for Palestine. 
*
(COMMENT)*

While it is true, that each Mandatory Power, being the successor government, accepted the previous debt, it is not true that either the Mandate or the Treaty of Versailles "recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down."  That is to say, as new demarcations of states are created.  But the territories of _(what we call today as Palestine and Jordan)_ were really parts of several Vilayets; absolutely nothing corresponding to the claim states; and certainly no political subdivisions called Jordan or Palestine.

And your last sentence shows some additional confusion.  Great Britain (GB), as the assigned Mandatory for the Zone B Sykes-Picot Agreement, became the Government of Palestine.  What GB decided relative to personal land grants and property ownership has absolutely no impact on the establishment of government. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You stated in one of your posts:
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First:  This is wrong:  "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is also not quite correct:  "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"
> 
> The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate.  NOT (just plain) Palestine.  The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne.  As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government.  And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who has the authority to change that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no change.  The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate.  But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

There are all kinds of people that adopt unofficial regional names.  In this case, the Arabs of the Regin adopted the name of the Mandate.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You stated in one of your posts:
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First:  This is wrong:  "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is also not quite correct:  "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"
> 
> The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate.  NOT (just plain) Palestine.  The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne.  As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government.  And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who has the authority to change that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no change.  The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate.  But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The rough analogy to the name "Palestinian" (1922 to 1988) is "Appalachian" _(although some prefer "Alleghania")_  the affectionate name for people from Appalachia _(includes 420 counties in 13 states)_.  It is about  205,000-square-mile; by comparison the former British Mandate of Palestine was 10,280.2 sq. miles.

The Mandate for Palestine was, by treaty and direction, determined by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> There are all kinds of people that adopt unofficial regional names.  In this case, the Arabs of the Regin adopted the name of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You stated in one of your posts:
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First:  This is wrong:  "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is also not quite correct:  "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"
> 
> The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate.  NOT (just plain) Palestine.  The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne.  As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government.  And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who has the authority to change that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no change.  The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate.  But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The rough analogy to the name "Palestinian" (1922 to 1988) is "Appalachian" _(although some prefer "Alleghania")_  the affectionate name for people from Appalachia _(includes 420 counties in 13 states)_.  It is about  205,000-square-mile; by comparison the former British Mandate of Palestine was 10,280.2 sq. miles.
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was, by treaty and direction, determined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Mandate was not Palestine.

You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now you're just being silly.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate was not Palestine.
> 
> You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.


*(COMMENT)*

As I said.  The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​
Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda.  When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread _(intentionally or unintentionally)_ of misinformation.

"Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.

"Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.

The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
*SOURCE:* Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36​
I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning  or Criticism as a fallacy.  But it certainly does not address the point.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now you're just being silly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not Palestine.
> 
> You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I said.  The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.
> 
> "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​
> Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda.  When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread _(intentionally or unintentionally)_ of misinformation.
> 
> "Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.
> 
> "Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.
> 
> The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
> *SOURCE:* Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36​
> I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning  or Criticism as a fallacy.  But it certainly does not address the point.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaties of Lausanne and Versailles do not set an obligation anything for the Allied Powers.  Nor do they create a territorial space called Palestine.  Neither Treaty relinquishes any rights or title to any inhabitance.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now you're just being silly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not Palestine.
> 
> You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I said.  The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.
> 
> "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​
> Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda.  When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread _(intentionally or unintentionally)_ of misinformation.
> 
> "Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.
> 
> "Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.
> 
> The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
> *SOURCE:* Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36​
> I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning  or Criticism as a fallacy.  But it certainly does not address the point.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Where, in either treaty, is Palestine mentioned.

There is no question that all the member nations understood that the Empire/Republic the Allied Powers had ALL TITLES AND RIGHTS pertaining to Palestine.  And why should the Arab Palestinians of today even concern themselves with these treaties when the Arab Palestine was not even a party to the treaties?  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just playing word games that have no real life meaning.  What are you trying to say here -- that there wouldn't be a conflict if Israel hadn't named herself Israel, but had called herself "Palestine" instead?  Its silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Decisions of international and national tribunals*
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of *state succession to the "A" Mandates. *The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to *recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the *newly created states that acquired the territory* to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.* It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an *allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...









 And not one of your links says anything about Palestine being an A mandate or about it being a successor state. But they do say that a mandatory will be put in charge of certain areas until the inhabitants can show and prove free determination and the ability to stand on their own.

 The world is still waiting for the Palestinians to show anything but aggression and violence till they get their own way.


 By the way the actual judgment was that Britain as the mandatory was responsible for the debts accrued and that they should raise the monies from the mandate. The non existent state of Palestine had a non existent government to raise these monies and pay their debts


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You stated in one of your posts:
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First:  This is wrong:  "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is also not quite correct:  "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"
> 
> The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate.  NOT (just plain) Palestine.  The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne.  As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government.  And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who has the authority to change that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no change.  The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate.  But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.
Click to expand...







 WRONG it is a matter of historical record found in the many treaties of that time and entered into the minutes of the LoN meeting's in relation to the many mandates.

 It is you pimping the islamonazi propaganda canard all the time, and using links that have proven to be manipulated and altered by your favourite author in the islamonazi's favour.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> There are all kinds of people that adopt unofficial regional names.  In this case, the Arabs of the Regin adopted the name of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Let me try an answer this, reduced to the simplest form.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You stated in one of your posts:
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925 have NO relationship to the idea of independence and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ. Palestine was a successor state. What was said and done?
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First:  This is wrong:  "Palestine" is the short title name for "the limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what successor state got this territory and nationality? Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Successor Government to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic for that particular landscape was the Mandatory; as appointed by the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is also not quite correct:  "Ottoman to Palestinian nationality"
> 
> The correct interpretation was that the inhabitants moved from being citizens of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - to - citizens of The Territory under Mandate.  NOT (just plain) Palestine.  The language on citizenship comes from the 1922 Order in Council, and is just copied over to the Treaty of Lausanne.  As far as the Allied Powers were concerned, Palestine was "legal entity" and territory under mandate; NOT a state or government.  And this held true even beyond the termination of the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who has the authority to change that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no change.  The intent of the Allied Powers, articulated in the San Remo Agreement of 1920, remain the same throughout the period of the Mandate.  But if a change was needed to be made, it would be made by the Allied Powers, from the San Remo Convention.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just pimping Israel's old canard that there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The rough analogy to the name "Palestinian" (1922 to 1988) is "Appalachian" _(although some prefer "Alleghania")_  the affectionate name for people from Appalachia _(includes 420 counties in 13 states)_.  It is about  205,000-square-mile; by comparison the former British Mandate of Palestine was 10,280.2 sq. miles.
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was, by treaty and direction, determined by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandate was not Palestine.
> 
> You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.
Click to expand...







 Read the relevant documentation again and see that it was in part.

 How can it be Israeli propaganda when in pre dates modern Israel by many years, the mandate of Palestine was in existence from 1923, and is still in existence until the last of the land is sorted regarding ownership.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now you're just being silly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not Palestine.
> 
> You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I said.  The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.
> 
> "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​
> Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda.  When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread _(intentionally or unintentionally)_ of misinformation.
> 
> "Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.
> 
> "Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.
> 
> The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
> *SOURCE:* Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36​
> I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning  or Criticism as a fallacy.  But it certainly does not address the point.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.
Click to expand...







 And where is the proof of Palestine becoming a successor state, it has to be in the same way that the other nations came to be successor states. You cant use your altered treaties that are just one mans views as proof positive of this.
 If the treaty that you refer to uses the Order in Council as its foundation then the terminology is just as valid. So stop clutching at straws and deflecting away from the truth and just admit that you are wrong


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Palestine was "legal entity"





RoccoR said:


> Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine,



Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Treaties of Lausanne and Versailles do not set an obligation anything for the Allied Powers.  Nor do they create a territorial space called Palestine.  Neither Treaty relinquishes any rights or title to any inhabitance.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now you're just being silly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not Palestine.
> 
> You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I said.  The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.
> 
> "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​
> Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda.  When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread _(intentionally or unintentionally)_ of misinformation.
> 
> "Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.
> 
> "Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.
> 
> The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
> *SOURCE:* Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36​
> I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning  or Criticism as a fallacy.  But it certainly does not address the point.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where, in either treaty, is Palestine mentioned.
> 
> There is no question that all the member nations understood that the Empire/Republic the Allied Powers had ALL TITLES AND RIGHTS pertaining to Palestine.  And why should the Arab Palestinians of today even concern themselves with these treaties when the Arab Palestine was not even a party to the treaties?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I have posted many things saying that Palestine is a state. You have posted nothing saying that it is not.


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger, P F Tinmore,  et al,

You both are having troube with your memory.



Challenger said:


> Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, this is a bit complicate for you.

Great Britain (HBMG) is a government that covered the entire British Empire.  And in being part of the British Empire, you have that citizenship,

In the first half of the 20th Century (1900 -1949) _de facto _citizenship of the United Kingdom and the British Empire (AKA British Subjects), was any person born in the United Kingdom or the British Empire, including the independent dominions _(but not including protectorates)_.  Palestine was a territory under a Mandate issued by the League of Nations (LoN) in agreement with the Allied Powers that held the Title and Rights.

That is a very different thing being a Citizen of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, a territory subject to the Order in Council and the Allied Powers have agreed to entrust to a Mandatory, selected by Allied Power, the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.  The Mandate was monitored and supervised by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the LoN.
*Mandate*

League of Nations
Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
Alternative title: mandated territory

*Mandate, *an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a formerGerman or Turkish colony. The territory was called a mandated territory, or mandate.​Great Britain maintained and acted as the Government of Palestine,; but it was not a colonial holding and was not under British Sovereignty.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Do not confuse the de facto "Government of Palestine" as a government by the Arab inhabitants and for the Arab inhabitance.  In fact, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials during the entire period between 1922 and 1948.  Every attempt by the High Commissioner to engage the Arab Palestinians to establish an Arab Agency was declined on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.



P F Tinmore said:


> I have posted many things saying that Palestine is a state. You have posted nothing saying that it is not.


*(COMMENT)*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​*UN Palestine Commission
27 February 1948*
UNITED NATIONS
Department of Public Information
Press and Publications Bureau
Lake Success, New York​
Press Release PAL/138
27 February 1948​
*UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION
AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT*​
The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so far the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.

The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:

"*Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.* Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
"After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
"Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.

"After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.

"His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."
​The Palestine Commission has adopted the following statement of policy with respect to the continuity of employment of present employees of the Mandatory administration in Palestine, and has requested the Mandatory Power to publish the statement or circulate it to all employees of the present Government in Palestine:

"The United Nations Palestine Commission, being under the terms of the resolution of the General Assembly responsible for the administration of Palestine immediately following the termination of the Mandate, hereby calls upon all present employees of the Palestine administration to continue their service with the successor authority in Palestine when the British Mandate is terminated. It is the policy of the United Nations Palestine commission as the successor authority to maintain services on the same terms and with the same rights for employees as those enjoyed under the Mandatory Government. The Commission requests all present employees of the Palestine Administration to inform at the earliest possible date, the Mandatory Government for communication to the Commission, whether they would be willing to remain in the service of the successor administration of Palestine on such terms."​The next meeting of the Commission will be on Monday, March 1, at 3 P.M.​-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​This was a joint release by the UN, the UNPC, and The British Mandatory.  It has been published here many times.

In you claim, you say that you have "posted many things saying that Palestine is a state."  Well the question becomes:

•  If the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered the Title and Rights of these territories to the Allied Powers, and the Allied Powers maintained positive control of these territories, when did the territories become self-government and establish a state?​And please don't use the All Palestine Government as your claim.  It could not even establish self-government in the Gaza Strip.  It was dissolved in 1959 by its creator (Egypt).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Challenger, P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, this is a bit complicate for you.
> 
> Great Britain (HBMG) is a government that covered the entire British Empire.  And in being part of the British Empire, you have that citizenship,
> 
> In the first half of the 20th Century (1900 -1949) _de facto _citizenship of the United Kingdom and the British Empire (AKA British Subjects), was any person born in the United Kingdom or the British Empire, including the independent dominions _(but not including protectorates)_.  Palestine was a territory under a Mandate issued by the League of Nations (LoN) in agreement with the Allied Powers that held the Title and Rights.
> 
> That is a very different thing being a Citizen of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, a territory subject to the Order in Council and the Allied Powers have agreed to entrust to a Mandatory, selected by Allied Power, the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.  The Mandate was monitored and supervised by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the LoN.
> *Mandate*
> 
> League of Nations
> Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
> Alternative title: mandated territory
> 
> *Mandate, *an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a formerGerman or Turkish colony. The territory was called a mandated territory, or mandate.​Great Britain maintained and acted as the Government of Palestine,; but it was not a colonial holding and was not under British Sovereignty.
> 
> BIG DIFFERENCE!
> 
> Do not confuse the de facto "Government of Palestine" as a government by the Arab inhabitants and for the Arab inhabitance.  In fact, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials during the entire period between 1922 and 1948.  Every attempt by the High Commissioner to engage the Arab Palestinians to establish an Arab Agency was declined on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted many things saying that Palestine is a state. You have posted nothing saying that it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​*UN Palestine Commission
> 27 February 1948*
> UNITED NATIONS
> Department of Public Information
> Press and Publications Bureau
> Lake Success, New York​
> Press Release PAL/138
> 27 February 1948​
> *UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION
> AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT*​
> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so far the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.
> 
> The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
> 
> "*Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.* Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."
> ​The Palestine Commission has adopted the following statement of policy with respect to the continuity of employment of present employees of the Mandatory administration in Palestine, and has requested the Mandatory Power to publish the statement or circulate it to all employees of the present Government in Palestine:
> 
> "The United Nations Palestine Commission, being under the terms of the resolution of the General Assembly responsible for the administration of Palestine immediately following the termination of the Mandate, hereby calls upon all present employees of the Palestine administration to continue their service with the successor authority in Palestine when the British Mandate is terminated. It is the policy of the United Nations Palestine commission as the successor authority to maintain services on the same terms and with the same rights for employees as those enjoyed under the Mandatory Government. The Commission requests all present employees of the Palestine Administration to inform at the earliest possible date, the Mandatory Government for communication to the Commission, whether they would be willing to remain in the service of the successor administration of Palestine on such terms."​The next meeting of the Commission will be on Monday, March 1, at 3 P.M.​-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​This was a joint release by the UN, the UNPC, and The British Mandatory.  It has been published here many times.
> 
> In you claim, you say that you have "posted many things saying that Palestine is a state."  Well the question becomes:
> 
> •  If the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered the Title and Rights of these territories to the Allied Powers, and the Allied Powers maintained positive control of these territories, when did the territories become self-government and establish a state?​And please don't use the All Palestine Government as your claim.  It could not even establish self-government in the Gaza Strip.  It was dissolved in 1959 by its creator (Egypt).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

"After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing.​
Does that mean that it is a non self governing territory?

By immediately do they mean a planned sovereign state in the future?


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.



Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.
Click to expand...

Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was "legal entity"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.
Click to expand...








 Read it again rat boy and see that the government was a mandatory until such a time as the people could form a nation and sh0ow self determination. It was not a state until 1948 when the Jews declared independence


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Treaties of Lausanne and Versailles do not set an obligation anything for the Allied Powers.  Nor do they create a territorial space called Palestine.  Neither Treaty relinquishes any rights or title to any inhabitance.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now you're just being silly.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was not Palestine.
> 
> You are just pimping Israeli propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As I said.  The Palestine Order in Council which defines the meaning of Palestine in the geopolitical setting is published two days before the Mandate.
> 
> "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​
> Fact in itself, unmanipulated, is hardly anyone's propaganda.  When you make a statement in fact, but in such a way that an improper conclusion can be drawn from the inference, that is the spread _(intentionally or unintentionally)_ of misinformation.
> 
> "Participation in the United Nations forums that refer to a "State of Palestine" does not constitute US recognition of Palestinian statehood, UN Ambassador Susan Rice said.
> 
> "Any reference to the 'State of Palestine' in the United Nations, including the use of the term 'State of Palestine' on the placard in the Security Council or the use of the term 'State of Palestine' in the invitation to this meeting or other arrangements for participation in this meeting, do not reflect acquiescence that Palestine is a state," Rice, the US envoy to the world body, said Wednesday at a Security Council debate on the Middle East.
> 
> The United States was one of seven nations, including Israel, that voted Nov. 29 against elevating the Palestine Liberation Organization's status to non-member state in the General Assembly. The motion passed with 138 voting for and 41 abstaining."
> *SOURCE:* Jerusalem Post 13 April 2016 By JTA Reprinted 01/24/2013 13:36​
> I'm not sure your supposition that "I am pimping Israeli propaganda" is fallacious reasoning  or Criticism as a fallacy.  But it certainly does not address the point.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Order in Council was two years before Palestine became a successor state. Of course it would be described by different terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Where, in either treaty, is Palestine mentioned.
> 
> There is no question that all the member nations understood that the Empire/Republic the Allied Powers had ALL TITLES AND RIGHTS pertaining to Palestine.  And why should the Arab Palestinians of today even concern themselves with these treaties when the Arab Palestine was not even a party to the treaties?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted many things saying that Palestine is a state. You have posted nothing saying that it is not.
Click to expand...







 You have failed to show when this state came into existence and who was its head of government. Without either it could not be a state.
 Every single link given shows that Palestine was never a state, and all you have is a paper by an islamonazi propagandist that uses false data as the only evidence to support his claims. Every single treaty he uses is manipulated and altered to meet with his personal POV, and you ride in on his back.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was "legal entity"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it again rat boy and see that the government was a mandatory until such a time as the people could form a nation and sh0ow self determination. It was not a state until 1948 when the Jews declared independence
Click to expand...

There are multiple UN resolutions stating the the Palestinians have the right to self determination.

Could you post some stating the same things for the Jews?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger, P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, this is a bit complicate for you.
> 
> Great Britain (HBMG) is a government that covered the entire British Empire.  And in being part of the British Empire, you have that citizenship,
> 
> In the first half of the 20th Century (1900 -1949) _de facto _citizenship of the United Kingdom and the British Empire (AKA British Subjects), was any person born in the United Kingdom or the British Empire, including the independent dominions _(but not including protectorates)_.  Palestine was a territory under a Mandate issued by the League of Nations (LoN) in agreement with the Allied Powers that held the Title and Rights.
> 
> That is a very different thing being a Citizen of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, a territory subject to the Order in Council and the Allied Powers have agreed to entrust to a Mandatory, selected by Allied Power, the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.  The Mandate was monitored and supervised by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the LoN.
> *Mandate*
> 
> League of Nations
> Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
> Alternative title: mandated territory
> 
> *Mandate, *an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a formerGerman or Turkish colony. The territory was called a mandated territory, or mandate.​Great Britain maintained and acted as the Government of Palestine,; but it was not a colonial holding and was not under British Sovereignty.
> 
> BIG DIFFERENCE!
> 
> Do not confuse the de facto "Government of Palestine" as a government by the Arab inhabitants and for the Arab inhabitance.  In fact, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials during the entire period between 1922 and 1948.  Every attempt by the High Commissioner to engage the Arab Palestinians to establish an Arab Agency was declined on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted many things saying that Palestine is a state. You have posted nothing saying that it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​*UN Palestine Commission
> 27 February 1948*
> UNITED NATIONS
> Department of Public Information
> Press and Publications Bureau
> Lake Success, New York​
> Press Release PAL/138
> 27 February 1948​
> *UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION
> AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT*​
> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so far the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.
> 
> The memorandum, transmitted to the Commission by the British Delegation to the United Nations, sets forth the position of the Mandatory Power with respect to the question of the successor government in Palestine after the termination of the British mandate. Pertinent excerpts from the memorandum are as follows:
> 
> "*Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state.* Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.
> "Where the sovereignty of Palestine lies at the present time is a disputed and perhaps academic legal question about which writers have expressed a number of different conclusions. Where the sovereignty of Palestine will lie after the 15th May, 1948, is perhaps also a question on which different views will be held, but so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, it is a question which it is unnecessary to answer in connection with any practical issues.
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine. It does not seem very material whether it is considered to be the de facto or the de jure Government. In any case, its title to be the Government of Palestine will rest on the resolution of the General Assembly.
> 
> "His Majesty's Government will recognize the United Nations Commission as the authority with which to make an agreement regarding the transfer of the assets of the Government of Palestine."
> ​The Palestine Commission has adopted the following statement of policy with respect to the continuity of employment of present employees of the Mandatory administration in Palestine, and has requested the Mandatory Power to publish the statement or circulate it to all employees of the present Government in Palestine:
> 
> "The United Nations Palestine Commission, being under the terms of the resolution of the General Assembly responsible for the administration of Palestine immediately following the termination of the Mandate, hereby calls upon all present employees of the Palestine administration to continue their service with the successor authority in Palestine when the British Mandate is terminated. It is the policy of the United Nations Palestine commission as the successor authority to maintain services on the same terms and with the same rights for employees as those enjoyed under the Mandatory Government. The Commission requests all present employees of the Palestine Administration to inform at the earliest possible date, the Mandatory Government for communication to the Commission, whether they would be willing to remain in the service of the successor administration of Palestine on such terms."​The next meeting of the Commission will be on Monday, March 1, at 3 P.M.​-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​This was a joint release by the UN, the UNPC, and The British Mandatory.  It has been published here many times.
> 
> In you claim, you say that you have "posted many things saying that Palestine is a state."  Well the question becomes:
> 
> •  If the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic surrendered the Title and Rights of these territories to the Allied Powers, and the Allied Powers maintained positive control of these territories, when did the territories become self-government and establish a state?​And please don't use the All Palestine Government as your claim.  It could not even establish self-government in the Gaza Strip.  It was dissolved in 1959 by its creator (Egypt).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing.​
> Does that mean that it is a non self governing territory?
> 
> By immediately do they mean a planned sovereign state in the future?
Click to expand...







 Lets just  say the UN has spoken on this matter and found you to be in error.

 No it does not mean it was a non self governing territory, as it was governed by the mandatory. Which was Britain until may14, and then the UN from may15. In 1949 the UN accepted Israel as the government of the land.

The door was left open for both parties to take advantage, and as usual the Palestinians missed the bus and have still not shown free determination or the ability to stand on their own feet.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.
Click to expand...







 Correct the MANDATE which was in place at the time. Spelt out in the LoN treaties and mandate documents. Something I have tried to educate you on these past 4 years but you ignore the truth because it means that you are wrong


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?
Click to expand...






 No as it was never the UN's land.


 AND NOW YOU ARE JUST BEING SILLY BECAUSE THE PENNY FINALLY DROPPED. The LoN owned the land and made it into one of many mandates, the mandatories of those mandates did not own the land. International law of 1923 states that the land known as Jewish Palestine was to be granted as the Jewish NATIONal home. This means that the Jews took up their birthright in 1948 and took control of their land. The only stealing was done by Jordan and Egypt when they stole the land the UN tried to palm of on the Palestinians.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is an interesting question.



P F Tinmore said:


> Memo on Successor Government said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that it is a non self governing territory?
> 
> By immediately do they mean a planned sovereign state in the future?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  Mandates and Trusteeship at the turn into the 20th Century, different than States and Protectorates.

Mandates _(like the Mandate for Palestine)_ had governments as usually assigned by the Allied Powers.  What make the Mandate for Palestine, out of the several British Mandate and Protectorates _(9 in the Arab Realm)_.  I say that with the reservation that not all Mandates are the same as the Post Great War Mandates.  The current UN Mandate for Iraq is a very different Mandate from that of the post-WWI era.

To ANSWER the first Question:

•  In the case of the territory of Palestine, the 1922-1948 Mandate:  non-self governing only meant that the Government of Palestine was not that established by the inhabitants.   And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples."   During the period 1922 and 1923 the High Commissioner attempted to entice participation.
•  THUS:  It was not that they Arab Palestinians were prevented from self-governance, but rather, the declined to take such steps as preparatory for self-governance and Independence.​to ANSWER the second Question:

•  The language of "immediate" depends on the Arab Palestinian participation in Article 22 Criteria.   In fact, they actually did use language that would suggest Independence and Sovereignty at some point in the future.  ALL the territory situated outside the frontiers of Turkey were, at some point, to be granted independence.  But as Article 16  Treaty of Lausanne points out, "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  The Allied Powers held the Title and Rights to these territories and would decide on the partitioning; and Arab and Jews gradually receiving greater and greater levels of autonomy until total self-governance is achieved.  And in early 1948, the Arab Higher Committee --- AGAIN --- rejected to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​The Arab Palestinians seldom, if ever, accept the consequences of their actions.  In this case, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate ---  THEREFORE they have no real cause for complaint.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was "legal entity"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it again rat boy and see that the government was a mandatory until such a time as the people could form a nation and sh0ow self determination. It was not a state until 1948 when the Jews declared independence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are multiple UN resolutions stating the the Palestinians have the right to self determination.
> 
> Could you post some stating the same things for the Jews?
Click to expand...






 Why as it is a right of everyone, and as you know UN resolutions are not international law but recommendations.



UNPO:  Self-determination



The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:

All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.






 So when will the Palestinians exercise this right and take control of their own lives, instead of making false claims that they are refused this right. Who refuses them this right, and how is it refused.  You need to look up what it means before making any more stupid claims.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was "legal entity"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it again rat boy and see that the government was a mandatory until such a time as the people could form a nation and sh0ow self determination. It was not a state until 1948 when the Jews declared independence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are multiple UN resolutions stating the the Palestinians have the right to self determination.
> 
> Could you post some stating the same things for the Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why as it is a right of everyone, and as you know UN resolutions are not international law but recommendations.
> 
> 
> 
> UNPO:  Self-determination
> 
> 
> 
> The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when will the Palestinians exercise this right and take control of their own lives, instead of making false claims that they are refused this right. Who refuses them this right, and how is it refused.  You need to look up what it means before making any more stupid claims.
Click to expand...

All peoples have the right to self-determination.=​
What is the meaning of peoples?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is an interesting question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Memo on Successor Government said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that it is a non self governing territory?
> 
> By immediately do they mean a planned sovereign state in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Mandates and Trusteeship at the turn into the 20th Century, different than States and Protectorates.
> 
> Mandates _(like the Mandate for Palestine)_ had governments as usually assigned by the Allied Powers.  What make the Mandate for Palestine, out of the several British Mandate and Protectorates _(9 in the Arab Realm)_.  I say that with the reservation that not all Mandates are the same as the Post Great War Mandates.  The current UN Mandate for Iraq is a very different Mandate from that of the post-WWI era.
> 
> To ANSWER the first Question:
> 
> •  In the case of the territory of Palestine, the 1922-1948 Mandate:  non-self governing only meant that the Government of Palestine was not that established by the inhabitants.   And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples."   During the period 1922 and 1923 the High Commissioner attempted to entice participation.
> •  THUS:  It was not that they Arab Palestinians were prevented from self-governance, but rather, the declined to take such steps as preparatory for self-governance and Independence.​to ANSWER the second Question:
> 
> •  The language of "immediate" depends on the Arab Palestinian participation in Article 22 Criteria.   In fact, they actually did use language that would suggest Independence and Sovereignty at some point in the future.  ALL the territory situated outside the frontiers of Turkey were, at some point, to be granted independence.  But as Article 16  Treaty of Lausanne points out, "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  The Allied Powers held the Title and Rights to these territories and would decide on the partitioning; and Arab and Jews gradually receiving greater and greater levels of autonomy until total self-governance is achieved.  And in early 1948, the Arab Higher Committee --- AGAIN --- rejected to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​The Arab Palestinians seldom, if ever, accept the consequences of their actions.  In this case, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate ---  THEREFORE they have no real cause for complaint.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples."​
Load of crap, Rocco. The Palestinians were blocked at every turn for self governance.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Not quite.



P F Tinmore said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You have to examine the entire timeline.   The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.  

•  The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
•  The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.

The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.

•  In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
•  In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.

Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the_ Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel._

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, this is an undefined term.



P F Tinmore said:


> All peoples have the right to self-determination.=​
> What is the meaning of peoples?


*(COMMENT)*

I think this is a red herring approach to derail the discussion.

•  See The meaning of indigenous peoples.

I attach this every time.  If it does not included so facet or fraction of people, please let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have to examine the entire timeline.   The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> •  The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
> •  The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.
> 
> •  In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
> •  In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.
> 
> Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the_ Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel._
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.

Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is another side-line.



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> There are multiple UN resolutions stating the the Palestinians have the right to self determination.
> 
> Could you post some stating the same things for the Jews?


*(COMMENT)*

It is either a Planet-wide human right encompassing all people, or it is not a "Human Right."  And if it doesn't encompass the very people that were included in the Balfour Declaration, and all the linage of material thereafter, then it is irrelevant.

I suggest you make an argument as to why self-determination, 

•  The observer for the State of Palestine responded by declaring: *“The right to self-determination belongs to all, and doesn’t come after negotiations.”*

The Palestinians have exercised there "right to self-determination" several times.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is an undefined term.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.=​
> What is the meaning of peoples?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think this is a red herring approach to derail the discussion.
> 
> •  See The meaning of indigenous peoples.
> 
> I attach this every time.  If it does not included so facet or fraction of people, please let me know.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

How does that relate to the discussion at hand?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, so exactly where does it say that?



P F Tinmore said:


> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.


*(COMMENT)*

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You asked for the meaning of "peoples."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is an undefined term.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.=​
> What is the meaning of peoples?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think this is a red herring approach to derail the discussion.
> 
> •  See The meaning of indigenous peoples.
> 
> I attach this every time.  If it does not included so facet or fraction of people, please let me know.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that relate to the discussion at hand?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I gave you the UN FACT SHEET that discusses "peoples."

Your argument is probably going to challenge on the fact sheet is focused on "INDIGENOUS PEOPLES" and not just the (stand-alone) "peoples" of the Charter.

If you want to split hairs, than go right ahead.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL"...​
Misleading. The agreements were Egyptian-Israeli, etc.. A place called Israel was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is your opinion.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

*SOVEREIGNTY*
In the context of Rights and Duties of States, the _Restatement of the Law Third_ states:

"'Sovereignty' is a term used in many senses and is much abused. As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory generally to the exclusion of other states, authority to govern in that territory, and authority to apply law there."


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was "legal entity"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. If I might make an observation, if Palestine was a legal entity and had a government seperate and distinct from HBMG, then it qualifies as a state, does it not? Even under Montevideo requirements Palestine had a territory, a population, and a government. Just because that government was controlled by a foreign power (Britain) does not in any way detract from it's status as a state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it again rat boy and see that the government was a mandatory until such a time as the people could form a nation and sh0ow self determination. It was not a state until 1948 when the Jews declared independence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are multiple UN resolutions stating the the Palestinians have the right to self determination.
> 
> Could you post some stating the same things for the Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why as it is a right of everyone, and as you know UN resolutions are not international law but recommendations.
> 
> 
> 
> UNPO:  Self-determination
> 
> 
> 
> The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when will the Palestinians exercise this right and take control of their own lives, instead of making false claims that they are refused this right. Who refuses them this right, and how is it refused.  You need to look up what it means before making any more stupid claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.=​
> What is the meaning of peoples?
Click to expand...








 What ever you want it to mean, in this case it means everyone in the whole world has the right to free determination. Not everyone in the world wants to take up that right. A good example is the Palestinians who have refused to take it up and instead want it handing to them on a plate. Then to be run by another power so they can complain their right to free determination has been taken away.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, oh of course.   Remember, the sovereignty of Israel is not dependent on the Hostile Arab Palestinian recognition.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL"...​
> Misleading. The agreements were Egyptian-Israeli, etc.. A place called Israel was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Armistice Arrangement is a temporary measure pending a Treaty.

It is really the treaty you have to be concerned with since that are no Armistice Lines pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.



*Article II  


Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979
*
The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

*Article 3 - International Boundary*
Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel​
1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.​I would like to see the Treaty Palestine has to demonstrate its borders.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is an interesting question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Memo on Successor Government said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state* because it will not be immediately self-governing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that it is a non self governing territory?
> 
> By immediately do they mean a planned sovereign state in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Mandates and Trusteeship at the turn into the 20th Century, different than States and Protectorates.
> 
> Mandates _(like the Mandate for Palestine)_ had governments as usually assigned by the Allied Powers.  What make the Mandate for Palestine, out of the several British Mandate and Protectorates _(9 in the Arab Realm)_.  I say that with the reservation that not all Mandates are the same as the Post Great War Mandates.  The current UN Mandate for Iraq is a very different Mandate from that of the post-WWI era.
> 
> To ANSWER the first Question:
> 
> •  In the case of the territory of Palestine, the 1922-1948 Mandate:  non-self governing only meant that the Government of Palestine was not that established by the inhabitants.   And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples."   During the period 1922 and 1923 the High Commissioner attempted to entice participation.
> •  THUS:  It was not that they Arab Palestinians were prevented from self-governance, but rather, the declined to take such steps as preparatory for self-governance and Independence.​to ANSWER the second Question:
> 
> •  The language of "immediate" depends on the Arab Palestinian participation in Article 22 Criteria.   In fact, they actually did use language that would suggest Independence and Sovereignty at some point in the future.  ALL the territory situated outside the frontiers of Turkey were, at some point, to be granted independence.  But as Article 16  Treaty of Lausanne points out, "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  The Allied Powers held the Title and Rights to these territories and would decide on the partitioning; and Arab and Jews gradually receiving greater and greater levels of autonomy until total self-governance is achieved.  And in early 1948, the Arab Higher Committee --- AGAIN --- rejected to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​The Arab Palestinians seldom, if ever, accept the consequences of their actions.  In this case, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate ---  THEREFORE they have no real cause for complaint.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was the continuous rejection of the regional Arabs to participate in the development of governance pursuant to Article 22 "the tutelage of such peoples."​
> Load of crap, Rocco. The Palestinians were blocked at every turn for self governance.
Click to expand...







 Who blocked them and how were they blocked, time to state the facts to see if you do understand what is meant. As far as the world is concerned the Palestinians have blocked themselves from ever governing themselves, and prefer to allow outside influence to do it for them.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL"...​
> Misleading. The agreements were Egyptian-Israeli, etc.. A place called Israel was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.
Click to expand...






You contradict yourself if you look. If no place called Israel was mentioned then why is it in the heading. It was Palestine that was never mentioned as Palestine was never a nation until the arab muslims made the first step in 1988


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, oh of course.   Remember, the sovereignty of Israel is not dependent on the Hostile Arab Palestinian recognition.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL"...​
> Misleading. The agreements were Egyptian-Israeli, etc.. A place called Israel was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Armistice Arrangement is a temporary measure pending a Treaty.
> 
> It is really the treaty you have to be concerned with since that are no Armistice Lines pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
> 
> 
> 
> *Article II
> 
> 
> Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979
> *
> 
> The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
> *Article 3 - International Boundary*
> Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel​1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
> 2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
> 
> 3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.​I would like to see the Treaty Palestine has to demonstrate its borders.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...






 So would I and billions of other people, just so we can point out that there are no treaties granting palestine the nation any borders.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have to examine the entire timeline.   The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> •  The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
> •  The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.
> 
> •  In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
> •  In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.
> 
> Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the_ Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel._
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
Click to expand...






 LINK ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is an undefined term.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.=​
> What is the meaning of peoples?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think this is a red herring approach to derail the discussion.
> 
> •  See The meaning of indigenous peoples.
> 
> I attach this every time.  If it does not included so facet or fraction of people, please let me know.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that relate to the discussion at hand?
Click to expand...







 It answers your question, so you play the idiot again and ask how it answers your question.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
Click to expand...







 So the arab muslims did not acquire sovereignty over Jerusalem in 1949 only to lose it in 1967 ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
Click to expand...







Stop trying to be clever, you don't have the intelligence. In 1949 the partition plan folded as far as the arab muslims were concerned and they lost the chance to hold sovereignty over land that was to be theirs. This land passed into Israeli ownership and sovereignty by default, and once again it took you lot a long time to realise that you had lost again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, that is your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, so exactly where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, each Armistice agreement is between "ISRAEL" and some other Arab Aggressor Nation.  It does not matter what the Hostile Arabs call the demarcation.  What matters is who exercises sovereign control.  The adoption of not recognizing Israel is a well known ploy.  Don't fool yourself.  The Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptian that surround Israel knows exactly who controls what borders.  And if that is not clear, the read the treaties.  The International Boundaries are discussed in detail and are recognized even now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing military control (occupation) with sovereignty. Military occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *SOVEREIGNTY*
> In the context of Rights and Duties of States, the _Restatement of the Law Third_ states:
> 
> "'Sovereignty' is a term used in many senses and is much abused. As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory generally to the exclusion of other states, authority to govern in that territory, and authority to apply law there."
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory...​
Which leads  us back to the question that you always dance around.

When did Israel ever legally acquire any territory?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You both are having troube with your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have to examine the entire timeline.   The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> •  The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
> •  The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.
> 
> •  In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
> •  In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.
> 
> Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the_ Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel._
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK ?
Click to expand...

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yessss...  This is the *ye olde'Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty *question.  We've been around this track a couple of time.



			
				Journal of Sharia & Law said:
			
		

> The territorialization of international system with the Munster and Osnabruck Treaties respectively, represents undoubtedly the unending legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. It suffices to think to Article 2 (1) of UN Charter which spells out the ‘sovereign equality’ of Member States, as the fundamental principle on which the UN has been built upon. Therefore, one can even argue that the international order, so far, is essentially a territorial order. The great number of territorial disputes (territorial and maritime), as well as the fact that they represent a significant part of all the international arbitral awards, confirms the existence of a true ‘territory obsession’.
> *SOURCE:* *Theories on Territorial Sovereignty: A Reappraisal*



So, this time, I'd thought I'd put my Sharia (Islamic Law) & what little law Law knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) to work.

As far as the main features of the territory are concerned, it is generally recognized by the doctrine and consolidated practice that the territory must be: 

(a) stable _(permanence of the residing population)_, 
(b) delimited  _(There exist certain States whose borders are not clearly limited in their entirety and nevertheless their existence is not put into question.) _
(c) continuous _(refers to the continuity of State’s territory)_. ​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which leads  us back to the question that you always dance around.
> 
> When did Israel ever legally acquire any territory?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I've never really danced around this question.  I just get the impression that you don't like the answer.

•  The right of a State over a territory – implying the power to dispose of it – is an absolute right since it is opposable erga omnes and it is also concrete (real), for it refers to goods or things.  In the case of under Mandate, the "TITLE and RIGHTS" transferred from the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  In addition to the TITLE and Rights to the territory, the treaty also acknowledge the privilege of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the territory.

SO:  The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers. 

SO: This second transfer came when the Allied Powers (having the Title and Rights) agreed to select His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine.  The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power; EXCEPT as agreed upon by the Members of the League and explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;.

SO:  The third transfer was effected one the announcement of the termination of the Mandate and the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power.  The successor to the Mandatory Power was announced by the UN in alignment with the adopted instructions from General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) as the UN Palestine Commission.

SO:  The fourth transfer was effected when, during the period between November 1947 and May 1948, the Provisional Government and Jewish Agency worked to accomplish the Steps Preparatory to Independence and coordinate its intentions to Declare Independence immediately upon termination of the Mandate.​At the time of the Armistice Agreements in 1949, Israel _(at the time of the cessation of hostilities)_ assumed control of territory abandoned by Hostile Arab Forces in flight or under close pursuit and contact --- up to the FEBA; as designated by the Armistice Commission and Mediator.

This does not include the acquisition of abandon Jordanian sovereign territory (West Bank) on 1 August 1988, falling into the only remaining power (Israel).  However, unlike Jordan, Israel did not annex the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## montelatici

The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.


The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves. 

What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Ah yessss...  This is the *ye olde'Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty *question.  We've been around this track a couple of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Journal of Sharia & Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territorialization of international system with the Munster and Osnabruck Treaties respectively, represents undoubtedly the unending legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. It suffices to think to Article 2 (1) of UN Charter which spells out the ‘sovereign equality’ of Member States, as the fundamental principle on which the UN has been built upon. Therefore, one can even argue that the international order, so far, is essentially a territorial order. The great number of territorial disputes (territorial and maritime), as well as the fact that they represent a significant part of all the international arbitral awards, confirms the existence of a true ‘territory obsession’.
> *SOURCE:* *Theories on Territorial Sovereignty: A Reappraisal*
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> So, this time, I'd thought I'd put my Sharia (Islamic Law) & what little law Law knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) to work.
> 
> As far as the main features of the territory are concerned, it is generally recognized by the doctrine and consolidated practice that the territory must be:
> 
> (a) stable _(permanence of the residing population)_,
> (b) delimited  _(There exist certain States whose borders are not clearly limited in their entirety and nevertheless their existence is not put into question.) _
> (c) continuous _(refers to the continuity of State’s territory)_.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which leads  us back to the question that you always dance around.
> 
> When did Israel ever legally acquire any territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've never really danced around this question.  I just get the impression that you don't like the answer.
> •  The right of a State over a territory – implying the power to dispose of it – is an absolute right since it is opposable erga omnes and it is also concrete (real), for it refers to goods or things.  In the case of under Mandate, the "TITLE and RIGHTS" transferred from the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  In addition to the TITLE and Rights to the territory, the treaty also acknowledge the privilege of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the territory.
> 
> SO:  The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.
> 
> SO: This second transfer came when the Allied Powers (having the Title and Rights) agreed to select His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine.  The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power; EXCEPT as agreed upon by the Members of the League and explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;.
> 
> SO:  The third transfer was effected one the announcement of the termination of the Mandate and the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power.  The successor to the Mandatory Power was announced by the UN in alignment with the adopted instructions from General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) as the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> SO:  The fourth transfer was effected when, during the period between November 1947 and May 1948, the Provisional Government and Jewish Agency worked to accomplish the Steps Preparatory to Independence and coordinate its intentions to Declare Independence immediately upon termination of the Mandate.​At the time of the Armistice Agreements in 1949, Israel _(at the time of the cessation of hostilities)_ assumed control of territory abandoned by Hostile Arab Forces in flight or under close pursuit and contact --- up to the FEBA; as designated by the Armistice Commission and Mediator.
> 
> This does not include the acquisition of abandon Jordanian sovereign territory (West Bank) on 1 August 1988, falling into the only remaining power (Israel).  However, unlike Jordan, Israel did not annex the territory.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...

SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.

So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.
> 
> What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?
Click to expand...


The Turks were long gone.  There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.
> 
> What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turks were long gone.  There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.
Click to expand...

The invading / colonizing Turks were long gone in the early 1920's.

The invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters never left until they were pushed aside by the invading Arab-Moslem armies much later.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.
> 
> What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turks were long gone.  There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The invading / colonizing Turks were long gone in the early 1920's.
> 
> The invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters never left until they were pushed aside by the invading Arab-Moslem armies much later.
Click to expand...


There were no colonizing Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese.  The only invaders, colonizers and squatters were the Europeans.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.
> 
> What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turks were long gone.  There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The invading / colonizing Turks were long gone in the early 1920's.
> 
> The invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters never left until they were pushed aside by the invading Arab-Moslem armies much later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were no colonizing Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese.  The only invaders, colonizers and squatters were the Europeans.
Click to expand...

Actually, there _were_ invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters. Don't let your ignorance of history make your rambling so trivial.


----------



## montelatici

You are just making things up.  But that is par for the course for you.  You have nothing to back up any of your assertions, just your fantasies garnered from Zionist propaganda. But you know that.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> You are just making things up.  But that is par for the course for you.  You have nothing to back up any of your assertions, just your fantasies garnered from Zionist propaganda. But you know that.


I can see you're angry and frustrated at having no rebuttal. Use your inadequacies as a way to seek to improve yourself.


----------



## montelatici

No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.


----------



## Phoenall

And as you are told everytime you ask the same question 1917, 1923, 1948, 1949, 1967 or don't you recognise those dates.

 Now when did Palestine the nation legally acquire any territory


----------



## Phoenall

And as you are told everytime you ask the same question 1917, 1923, 1948, 1949, 1967 or don't you recognise those dates.

 Now when did Palestine the nation legally acquire any territory


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I never said sovereign. Interesting that the government of Palestine was to be handed over to the U.N. so that means an infrastructure of government existed to be passed on, had the Zionists not seceded.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean hat Israel stole the land from the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You have to examine the entire timeline.   The territory that is called the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  was not taken from the Allied Powers or the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> •  The West Bank was occupied by Israel from sovereign Jordanian territory.
> •  The Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel from Egyptian Military Governorship.
> 
> The original land outline in Part II Section B (GA Res-181) was, in coordination with the Successor Government, subject to Jewish Self-Determination on the termination of the Mandate [Chapter I- Article 1(2) of the CHarter] after completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.
> 
> •  In the case of the West Bank, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1994.
> •  In the case of the Gaza Strip, the territory was delimited as Israel under the Treaty of 1979.
> 
> Again, the Hostile Arab Palestinians declined to participate in a Peace Treaty following the_ Khartoum Resolution passed by the Arab League in the wake of the 1967 war is famous for the "Three Nos" articulated in the third paragraph: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel._
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lands absorbed in 1949, were Armistice Arrangements pursuant to UN Mediation.​
> Not true. All of Palestine was still Palestine according to the armistice agreements.
> 
> Don't forget that Israel signed those agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
> The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
Click to expand...






 READ THEM AGAQIN AND SEE THAT ISRAEL IS MENTIONED IN EVERYONE AS A SIGNATORY. WHO SIGNED FOR THE PALESTINIANS ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Ah yessss...  This is the *ye olde'Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty *question.  We've been around this track a couple of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Journal of Sharia & Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territorialization of international system with the Munster and Osnabruck Treaties respectively, represents undoubtedly the unending legacy of the Peace of Westphalia. It suffices to think to Article 2 (1) of UN Charter which spells out the ‘sovereign equality’ of Member States, as the fundamental principle on which the UN has been built upon. Therefore, one can even argue that the international order, so far, is essentially a territorial order. The great number of territorial disputes (territorial and maritime), as well as the fact that they represent a significant part of all the international arbitral awards, confirms the existence of a true ‘territory obsession’.
> *SOURCE:* *Theories on Territorial Sovereignty: A Reappraisal*
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> So, this time, I'd thought I'd put my Sharia (Islamic Law) & what little law Law knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) to work.
> 
> As far as the main features of the territory are concerned, it is generally recognized by the doctrine and consolidated practice that the territory must be:
> 
> (a) stable _(permanence of the residing population)_,
> (b) delimited  _(There exist certain States whose borders are not clearly limited in their entirety and nevertheless their existence is not put into question.) _
> (c) continuous _(refers to the continuity of State’s territory)_.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> As used here, it implies a state's lawful control over it's territory...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which leads  us back to the question that you always dance around.
> 
> When did Israel ever legally acquire any territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've never really danced around this question.  I just get the impression that you don't like the answer.
> •  The right of a State over a territory – implying the power to dispose of it – is an absolute right since it is opposable erga omnes and it is also concrete (real), for it refers to goods or things.  In the case of under Mandate, the "TITLE and RIGHTS" transferred from the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic through Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  In addition to the TITLE and Rights to the territory, the treaty also acknowledge the privilege of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the territory.
> 
> SO:  The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.
> 
> SO: This second transfer came when the Allied Powers (having the Title and Rights) agreed to select His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine.  The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power; EXCEPT as agreed upon by the Members of the League and explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;.
> 
> SO:  The third transfer was effected one the announcement of the termination of the Mandate and the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power.  The successor to the Mandatory Power was announced by the UN in alignment with the adopted instructions from General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) as the UN Palestine Commission.
> 
> SO:  The fourth transfer was effected when, during the period between November 1947 and May 1948, the Provisional Government and Jewish Agency worked to accomplish the Steps Preparatory to Independence and coordinate its intentions to Declare Independence immediately upon termination of the Mandate.​At the time of the Armistice Agreements in 1949, Israel _(at the time of the cessation of hostilities)_ assumed control of territory abandoned by Hostile Arab Forces in flight or under close pursuit and contact --- up to the FEBA; as designated by the Armistice Commission and Mediator.
> 
> This does not include the acquisition of abandon Jordanian sovereign territory (West Bank) on 1 August 1988, falling into the only remaining power (Israel).  However, unlike Jordan, Israel did not annex the territory.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
Click to expand...







 LINK ?


 As the last time I looked the LoN took full claim to the sovereignty of the Ottoman empire and ruled it with proxies. Read the Mandate again where this is spelt out for even idiots like you to understand



The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

*ARTICLE 1.*
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

*ART. 2.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only hostile forces were those of the Jewish terrorist colonizers. The native people were simply defending themselves from the European invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> The invading / colonizing Turks were not defending themselves.
> 
> What were the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters defending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Turks were long gone.  There were no Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese, they were in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The invading / colonizing Turks were long gone in the early 1920's.
> 
> The invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters never left until they were pushed aside by the invading Arab-Moslem armies much later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were no colonizing Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese.  The only invaders, colonizers and squatters were the Europeans.
Click to expand...







 Then were did the arab muslims come from, if they were indigenous then they would be Jewish muslims ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.









 Apart from recorded history that says the same thing


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.


Your ignorance of history is a poor excuse for your bankrupt claims.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al, 

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: 

•  The intention and will to act as a sovereign, 
•  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom. 

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of history is a poor excuse for your bankrupt claims.
Click to expand...


I make no claims, I just state officially reported facts.  

As reported by the UN as part of the Resolutions that partitioned Palestine in Resolution A 364:

_"b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. *From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
_
*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."
*
A/364 of 3 September 1947

Projecting does not change the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just pointing out that you have no support for your ridiculous assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of history is a poor excuse for your bankrupt claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I make no claims, I just state officially reported facts.
> 
> As reported by the UN as part of the Resolutions that partitioned Palestine in Resolution A 364:
> 
> _"b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. *From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> _
> *16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."
> *
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> Projecting does not change the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Spamming this thread and others with the same cutting and pasting suggests you're immune to learning.

Focus. Who invited the invading / colonizing Turks?

Who invited the invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters?


----------



## montelatici

Presenting facts versus your blabber.  No contest.

The Turks were welcomed by the Christian and Muslim inhabitantsof Palestine  to rid them of the Mamluk (Christian slaves, converts to Islam) rulers. The Turks were not settler colonists, just rulers, like the Mamluks before them.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Presenting facts versus your blabber.  No contest.
> 
> The Turks were welcomed by the Christian and Muslim inhabitantsof Palestine  to rid them of the Mamluk (Christian slaves, converts to Islam) rulers. The Turks were not settler colonists, just rulers, like the Mamluks before them.


The Turk invaders/colonists were welcomed?

Consider appending "..... because I say so" to your islamo-commandments.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that has little to do with reality.
> 
> Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.
> 
> By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.
> 
> While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:
> 
> •  The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
> •  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."
> 
> "When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
> It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that has little to do with reality.
> 
> Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.
> 
> By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.
> 
> While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:
> 
> •  The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
> •  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."
> 
> "When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
> It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.
> 
> They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.

The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.

IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen.  In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome.  The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.

As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire _(which is by no means clear)_,"  have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."  They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them.  And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presenting facts versus your blabber.  No contest.
> 
> The Turks were welcomed by the Christian and Muslim inhabitantsof Palestine  to rid them of the Mamluk (Christian slaves, converts to Islam) rulers. The Turks were not settler colonists, just rulers, like the Mamluks before them.
> 
> 
> 
> The Turk invaders/colonists were welcomed?
> 
> Consider appending "..... because I say so" to your islamo-commandments.
Click to expand...


It just historical fact, something you know little about.  You are totally confused as to who ruled when and where. LOL  

The Mamluks were not well-liked as rulers, so the Muslim and Christians of Palestine welcomed the Ottoman Turks. 

".......Marj Dabiq army passed quickly into the possession of the Ottomans whose advent was in many places welcomed as meaning deliverance from the Mamluks..."

*A History of the Crusades: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, edited by Harry W. Hazard*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that has little to do with reality.
> 
> Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.
> 
> By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.
> 
> While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:
> 
> •  The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
> •  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."
> 
> "When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
> It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.
> 
> They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.
Click to expand...







 By signing the treaties that is exactly what they did. You really need to stop projecting islamonazi talking points that don't meet with the facts.

The mandatory held the land in trust for the indigenous inhabitants to show they were able to stand on their own and show free determination.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that has little to do with reality.
> 
> Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.
> 
> By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.
> 
> While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:
> 
> •  The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
> •  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."
> 
> "When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
> It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.
> 
> They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.
> 
> The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.
> 
> IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen.  In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome.  The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.
> 
> As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire _(which is by no means clear)_,"  have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."  They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them.  And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​
Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that has little to do with reality.
> 
> Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.
> 
> By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.
> 
> While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:
> 
> •  The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
> •  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."
> 
> "When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
> It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.
> 
> They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.
> 
> The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.
> 
> IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen.  In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome.  The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.
> 
> As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire _(which is by no means clear)_,"  have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."  They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them.  And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​
> Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's called 'Pal'istanian' Welfare Syndrome.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that has little to do with reality.
> 
> Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.
> 
> By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.
> 
> While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:
> 
> •  The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
> •  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."
> 
> "When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
> It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.
> 
> They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.
> 
> The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.
> 
> IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen.  In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome.  The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.
> 
> As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire _(which is by no means clear)_,"  have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."  They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them.  And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​
> Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it's called 'Pal'istanian' Welfare Syndrome.
Click to expand...

Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is an unexplained derogatory comment.



P F Tinmore said:


> Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
Their legacy is that of a leech off the work and avails of others; takers and non-contributors that are growing in numbers.  Their notion of work is narrow and shallow.

In contrast --- Israel has large population centers; marvels in science and contributions to the scientific community, excels in architecture, and progressive and unique art styles.  While the US gives Israel aid over a number of given projects, they are investments and help in the preservation of the Jewish Culture, the only nation of its kind.  BUT, Israel does not call on the international community to coe together and donate large sums of money with no reasonable expectation on a return to the donor investment.

AGAIN, A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE>

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is an unexplained derogatory comment.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
> Their legacy is that of a leech off the work and avails of others; takers and non-contributors that are growing in numbers.  Their notion of work is narrow and shallow.
> 
> In contrast --- Israel has large population centers; marvels in science and contributions to the scientific community, excels in architecture, and progressive and unique art styles.  While the US gives Israel aid over a number of given projects, they are investments and help in the preservation of the Jewish Culture, the only nation of its kind.  BUT, Israel does not call on the international community to coe together and donate large sums of money with no reasonable expectation on a return to the donor investment.
> 
> AGAIN, A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE>
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.​
Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is an unexplained derogatory comment.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
> Their legacy is that of a leech off the work and avails of others; takers and non-contributors that are growing in numbers.  Their notion of work is narrow and shallow.
> 
> In contrast --- Israel has large population centers; marvels in science and contributions to the scientific community, excels in architecture, and progressive and unique art styles.  While the US gives Israel aid over a number of given projects, they are investments and help in the preservation of the Jewish Culture, the only nation of its kind.  BUT, Israel does not call on the international community to coe together and donate large sums of money with no reasonable expectation on a return to the donor investment.
> 
> AGAIN, A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE>
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.​
> Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.
Click to expand...


That's more of the stereotypical excuses for ineptitude and incompetence that marks Arab-Moslem behavior.

What you can't address is Israel made a _unilateral_ concession in returning Gaza to Arabs-Moslems. In return, Israel was showered with rockets. That  was yet another opportunity (yet another refused), for the Arab-Moslem terrorists to make an effort at building a functioning society. As usual, the Arabs-Moslems chose a fascistic, 7th century politico-religious ideology as the preferred alternative to joining the relevant first world.

The willingness of Israel to return land for peace with her neighbors was once again shown to be unworkable when those neighbors are Islamic terrorists. This underlies all interactions with a virulently hateful and self-destructive mindset of the retrograde Islamic terrorist.


----------



## montelatici

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison.  The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison.  The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.


Actually, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza'istan. Islamic terrorist attacks followed soon after. 

It was just another failure by Islamics to be a part of the relevant first world. Maybe have that discussion at your madrassah.


----------



## montelatici

No, the Israelis just made Gaza an outdoor prison maintaining a blockade.  Attacking the blockading force is appropriate.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> No, the Israelis just made Gaza an outdoor prison maintaining a blockade.  Attacking the blockading force is appropriate.


No. You're just unable to committ to the facts. 

My, aren't you the stereotypical keyboard gee-hadi. The gee-had of none.


----------



## montelatici

I just state the facts.  That's what gets to you.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> I just state the facts.  That's what gets to you.


What's amusing is your lack of facts.


----------



## montelatici

I only state fact.  It is you who are a source of amusement to all by the way you expose your ignorance every time you post.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> I only state fact.  It is you who are a source of amusement to all by the way you expose your ignorance every time you post.


You have stated no facts. Your opinions are actually refuted by the facts. 

You should do some research on the history of the invading / colonizing Turks and later the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors,"  --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."  Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights."  This is a primary principle and our strategic choice. 

The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.

The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.

HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.   



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
> 
> 
> 
> Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison.  The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.


*(COMMENT)*

Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).”  This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).  

When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
who lived directly around him.  This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy").  In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory.  Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.

•  Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.

•  Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.​It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy.   Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.

Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.

ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures.  It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The only hostiles are the Jewish invaders.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The only hostiles are the Jewish invaders.


There was no Jewish invasion. Any invasion would be defined by Crusading / colonizing Turks later followed by invading / colonizing Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters.


----------



## montelatici

Why would the Turks be "crusading"?  Do you have any clue what it means. LOL

The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine.  They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.

There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Why would the Turks be "crusading"?  Do you have any clue what it means. LOL
> 
> The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine.  They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.
> 
> There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.


You're stuttering and mumbling. 

Do your homework assignment in the Crusading / colonizing Turks. 

We'll then move on to the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / colonizers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors,"  --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."  Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights."  This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.
> 
> The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.
> 
> The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.
> 
> HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
> 
> 
> 
> Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison.  The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).”  This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).
> 
> When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
> who lived directly around him.  This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy").  In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory.  Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
> This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.
> 
> •  Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.
> 
> •  Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.​It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy.   Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.
> 
> Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.
> 
> ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures.  It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Turks be "crusading"?  Do you have any clue what it means. LOL
> 
> The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine.  They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.
> 
> There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuttering and mumbling.
> 
> Do your homework assignment in the Crusading / colonizing Turks.
> 
> We'll then move on to the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / colonizers.
Click to expand...


Why do you insist on confirming your ignorance.  Answer the question, why would the Turks be "crusading"?  Do you have a clue what the word means. LOL


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that has little to do with reality.
> 
> Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.
> 
> By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.
> 
> While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:
> 
> •  The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
> •  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO: The first transfer from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne, to the Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> However, neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed title to that territory. They held it in trust for the inhabitants who were the citizens of Palestine.
> 
> So, the remainder of your chain of succession is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."
> 
> "When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
> It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.
> 
> They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.
> 
> The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.
> 
> IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen.  In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome.  The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.
> 
> As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire _(which is by no means clear)_,"  have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."  They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them.  And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​
> Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.
Click to expand...








 From the arab league, showing that they did not want the Palestinians to ever have a nation of their own. There was no interference from the west or Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors,"  --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."  Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights."  This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.
> 
> The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.
> 
> The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.
> 
> HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
> 
> 
> 
> Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison.  The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).”  This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).
> 
> When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
> who lived directly around him.  This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy").  In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory.  Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
> This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.
> 
> •  Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.
> 
> •  Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.​It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy.   Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.
> 
> Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.
> 
> ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures.  It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
> You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.
Click to expand...






And you forget that there were two mandate in force, and get confused about the roles each played. One was the legal entity of the area known as Palestine the other was the nation allotted to oversee the running of the land yet to become a nation until such time as it was capable.
The British mandatory was a temporarily appointed administration, which is why it was so easy to pass on to the U.N. The mandate of Palestine is still in existence and will be until all the land is fully claimed.



READ THE TWO SEPERATE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE AND THE BRIRISH MANDATE





Just to educate you again the mandate of Palestine had whatever borders the LoN decided it would have. it is in the legal treaty documents. And you ignore these aspects every time


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Turks be "crusading"?  Do you have any clue what it means. LOL
> 
> The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine.  They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.
> 
> There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuttering and mumbling.
> 
> Do your homework assignment in the Crusading / colonizing Turks.
> 
> We'll then move on to the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / colonizers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on confirming your ignorance.  Answer the question, why would the Turks be "crusading"?  Do you have a clue what the word means. LOL
Click to expand...







 Land grabs which were common at that time, no UN to impose laws and rules to stop this from happening. Why did the Catholic church go Crusading in the middle east and America's ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, that has little to do with reality.
> 
> Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation."  This can go in either direction _(acquisition of divestiture)_.
> 
> By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents.  The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended _(once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation)_ that _(in some form and at sometime in the future)_ all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions _(self-determination)_.  The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.
> 
> While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:
> 
> •  The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
> •  The actual exercise or display of such authority.​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."
> 
> "When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​
> It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank.  That only left Israel as the remaining government in place.  The is similar to Acquisition by *Occupation;* when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having  been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient.  There must be an actual display of authority.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.
> 
> They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.
> 
> The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.
> 
> IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen.  In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome.  The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.
> 
> As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire _(which is by no means clear)_,"  have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."  They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them.  And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​
> Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it's called 'Pal'istanian' Welfare Syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
Click to expand...








 Proven wrong many times by looking at he amounts received per group, with islam receiving 20 times more than the Jews overall.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is an unexplained derogatory comment.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
> Their legacy is that of a leech off the work and avails of others; takers and non-contributors that are growing in numbers.  Their notion of work is narrow and shallow.
> 
> In contrast --- Israel has large population centers; marvels in science and contributions to the scientific community, excels in architecture, and progressive and unique art styles.  While the US gives Israel aid over a number of given projects, they are investments and help in the preservation of the Jewish Culture, the only nation of its kind.  BUT, Israel does not call on the international community to coe together and donate large sums of money with no reasonable expectation on a return to the donor investment.
> 
> AGAIN, A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE>
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.​
> Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.
Click to expand...







 Such are the fruits of a war you have no hope of winning. Don't start a fight you know you cant win as you will lose more than you expect.  The palestinians have always relied on others to support them, prior to 1918 it was the indigenous Jews and Christians that were forced into paying taxes, tithes and protection money to arab muslim thugs. That stopped and the Palestinians started to go hungry and become beggars


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison.  The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.








 Apart from the parts controlled by Egypt who have the same problems with the terrorists attacking women and children.


 ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN IN INTERNATIONAL LAW iSREAL DOES NOT OCCUPY GAZA AS IT DOES NOT HAVE A MILITARY STRANGLEHOLD ON EVERY SQUARE INCH. EVEN HAMAS HAS STATED THAT ISRAEL HAS NOT OCCUPIED GAZA SINCE 2005


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No, the Israelis just made Gaza an outdoor prison maintaining a blockade.  Attacking the blockading force is appropriate.






Just as responding to those attacks and the illegal weapons is also appropriate and legal. The Palestinians are in breach of UN resolutions, UN charter, IHL and Geneva conventions by firing each weapon into Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> I just state the facts.  That's what gets to you.









 WRONG you just repeat islamonazi propaganda and pallywood lies


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> I only state fact.  It is you who are a source of amusement to all by the way you expose your ignorance every time you post.






Show one fact then that is supported by unbiased reports ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The only hostiles are the Jewish invaders.








 When did they invade, and which country were they invading from ?

 remember to be invited is not an invasion, far from it and the last two sovereign rulers of Palestine invited the Jews to migrate and close colonise. ( look at what the term means in real life )


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Why would the Turks be "crusading"?  Do you have any clue what it means. LOL
> 
> The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine.  They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.
> 
> There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.








 Which nation organised this invasion then, and paid the costs.

 Why are there so many Palestinians with Egyptian, Syrian and Iranian names. And why have so many became Palestinian leaders over the years ?  Why no homegrown leaders showing in palestines history ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors,"  --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."  Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights."  This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.
> 
> The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.
> 
> The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.
> 
> HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
> 
> 
> 
> Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison.  The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).”  This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).
> 
> When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
> who lived directly around him.  This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy").  In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory.  Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
> This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.
> 
> •  Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.
> 
> •  Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.​It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy.   Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.
> 
> Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.
> 
> ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures.  It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
> You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.
Click to expand...








 CONFUSED.COM    again tinny..........................WHICH MANDATE ARE YOU ON ABOUT


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors,"  --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."  Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights."  This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.
> 
> The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.
> 
> The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.
> 
> HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)  is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
> 
> 
> 
> Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison.  The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).”  This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).
> 
> When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
> who lived directly around him.  This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy").  In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory.  Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
> This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.
> 
> •  Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.
> 
> •  Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.​It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy.   Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.
> 
> Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.
> 
> ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures.  It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​
> You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.
Click to expand...








 CONFUSED.COM    again tinny..........................WHICH MANDATE ARE YOU ON ABOUT


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh no, I don't think it is confusing at all.

When you say:  "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders." you are implying that there were no specific territorial limits associated with the League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was apportioned by the Treaty of Sèvres.   In Article 25 of the Mandate, the Emirate of Transjordan (1921-1946), was British-controlled territory, under the Mandate.

Specific to our discussion, the Mandate of Palestine comprised territory that now consists of modern-day Jordan  , Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  



			
				The Paulet-Newcombe Agreement said:
			
		

> *Paulet-Newcombe Line*, also known as the *Franco-British Boundary Agreements*, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma.[1]The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.
> 
> The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms in the 1920 "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia", signed in Paris, on 23 December 1920. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground.[3]
> 
> The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.
> SOURCE:   Wiki Paulet–Newcombe_Agreement


​


Approximately (≈) 76%-77% of the Mandate (for protectorate reasons) called Transjordan --- was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British _[territory East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq)]_.  At the time the first Palestine Order in Council was published, the definition was:


The phrase, "the territories to which the Mandate applies" (or variations thereof) flow directly from the definition published in the Palestine Order in Council.


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Yes it is true that a Mandate (itself) is an order from authority _(legal commission for the administration)_, or a politically recognized commission; however, every order, mandate, or commission has its limitations -- with the question of:  to what does it apply?   The limit of the Mandate for Palestine was a territorial boundary --- in 1922 (when the Palestine Order in Council was written), the nomenclature for the territory was derivative from the Treaty of Sevres:

*SECTION VII --- SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.*
*ARTICLE 95*.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.​
*(CENTRAL POINT)*

There is an argument to be made that the San Remo Peace Conference _(and the adoption of the Balfour Declaration)_ was the pivotal point in the creation of an associated territory --- and an Administration for that territory.  Although the Supreme Council did not have a clear set of boundaries established yet, they were confident that they could work with an approximation until a Joint Boundary Survey could hammer-out the lines.  Hence, the phrase, _"the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them"_ was put into use.  Of course --- this was later established by Colonels Paulette and Newman.  And it was at that point the, the adoption of the 1923 Paulette-Newman Agreement that the first real steps towards the establishment of the Jewish National Home was begun.

A theme to this central point is the idea that in they would erect a right for the Jewish People (worldwide) to gain refuge in their homeland; a place that they could control and protect against the excesses of the so many that used the color of law to exploit the Jewish People.  While today much of the original intent to protect and preserve the Jewish People and their culture has faded and ceased to exist; all the rights of the Jewish People that were derived from the linage of the Balfour Declaration and onward remained in full force.  And this included what was to become known as the "right of self-determination."

Just as, at the time the Mandates were created, the applicable phrase was "former territories of the Ottoman Empire,"  so it became after the termination of the British Mandate, "former territories to which the Mandate Applied."  And this phrase became popular by the post-1948 War Arabs of Palestine _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_ to which they lay claim.

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."  (The Arab League -- Arab Higher Committee)   Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh no, I don't think it is confusing at all.
> 
> When you say:  "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders." you are implying that there were no specific territorial limits associated with the League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was apportioned by the Treaty of Sèvres.   In Article 25 of the Mandate, the Emirate of Transjordan (1921-1946), was British-controlled territory, under the Mandate.
> 
> Specific to our discussion, the Mandate of Palestine comprised territory that now consists of modern-day Jordan  , Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Paulet-Newcombe Agreement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Paulet-Newcombe Line*, also known as the *Franco-British Boundary Agreements*, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma.[1]The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.
> 
> The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms in the 1920 "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia", signed in Paris, on 23 December 1920. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground.[3]
> 
> The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.
> SOURCE:   Wiki Paulet–Newcombe_Agreement
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 71469​Approximately (≈) 76%-77% of the Mandate (for protectorate reasons) called Transjordan --- was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British _[territory East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq)]_.  At the time the first Palestine Order in Council was published, the definition was:
> View attachment 71471​The phrase, "the territories to which the Mandate applies" (or variations thereof) flow directly from the definition published in the Palestine Order in Council.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes it is true that a Mandate (itself) is an order from authority _(legal commission for the administration)_, or a politically recognized commission; however, every order, mandate, or commission has its limitations -- with the question of:  to what does it apply?   The limit of the Mandate for Palestine was a territorial boundary --- in 1922 (when the Palestine Order in Council was written), the nomenclature for the territory was derivative from the Treaty of Sevres:
> 
> *SECTION VII --- SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
> ARTICLE 95*.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.​
> *(CENTRAL POINT)*
> 
> There is an argument to be made that the San Remo Peace Conference _(and the adoption of the Balfour Declaration)_ was the pivotal point in the creation of an associated territory --- and an Administration for that territory.  Although the Supreme Council did not have a clear set of boundaries established yet, they were confident that they could work with an approximation until a Joint Boundary Survey could hammer-out the lines.  Hence, the phrase, _"the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them"_ was put into use.  Of course --- this was later established by Colonels Paulette and Newman.  And it was at that point the, the adoption of the 1923 Paulette-Newman Agreement that the first real steps towards the establishment of the Jewish National Home was begun.
> 
> A theme to this central point is the idea that in they would erect a right for the Jewish People (worldwide) to gain refuge in their homeland; a place that they could control and protect against the excesses of the so many that used the color of law to exploit the Jewish People.  While today much of the original intent to protect and preserve the Jewish People and their culture has faded and ceased to exist; all the rights of the Jewish People that were derived from the linage of the Balfour Declaration and onward remained in full force.  And this included what was to become known as the "right of self-determination."
> 
> Just as, at the time the Mandates were created, the applicable phrase was "former territories of the Ottoman Empire,"  so it became after the termination of the British Mandate, "former territories to which the Mandate Applied."  And this phrase became popular by the post-1948 War Arabs of Palestine _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_ to which they lay claim.
> 
> "The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."  (The Arab League -- Arab Higher Committee)   Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So, what part of all this refutes my post?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh no, I don't think it is confusing at all.
> 
> When you say:  "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders." you are implying that there were no specific territorial limits associated with the League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was apportioned by the Treaty of Sèvres.   In Article 25 of the Mandate, the Emirate of Transjordan (1921-1946), was British-controlled territory, under the Mandate.
> 
> Specific to our discussion, the Mandate of Palestine comprised territory that now consists of modern-day Jordan  , Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Paulet-Newcombe Agreement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Paulet-Newcombe Line*, also known as the *Franco-British Boundary Agreements*, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma.[1]The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.
> 
> The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms in the 1920 "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia", signed in Paris, on 23 December 1920. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground.[3]
> 
> The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.
> SOURCE:   Wiki Paulet–Newcombe_Agreement
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 71469​Approximately (≈) 76%-77% of the Mandate (for protectorate reasons) called Transjordan --- was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British _[territory East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq)]_.  At the time the first Palestine Order in Council was published, the definition was:
> View attachment 71471​The phrase, "the territories to which the Mandate applies" (or variations thereof) flow directly from the definition published in the Palestine Order in Council.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes it is true that a Mandate (itself) is an order from authority _(legal commission for the administration)_, or a politically recognized commission; however, every order, mandate, or commission has its limitations -- with the question of:  to what does it apply?   The limit of the Mandate for Palestine was a territorial boundary --- in 1922 (when the Palestine Order in Council was written), the nomenclature for the territory was derivative from the Treaty of Sevres:
> 
> *SECTION VII --- SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
> ARTICLE 95*.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.​
> *(CENTRAL POINT)*
> 
> There is an argument to be made that the San Remo Peace Conference _(and the adoption of the Balfour Declaration)_ was the pivotal point in the creation of an associated territory --- and an Administration for that territory.  Although the Supreme Council did not have a clear set of boundaries established yet, they were confident that they could work with an approximation until a Joint Boundary Survey could hammer-out the lines.  Hence, the phrase, _"the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them"_ was put into use.  Of course --- this was later established by Colonels Paulette and Newman.  And it was at that point the, the adoption of the 1923 Paulette-Newman Agreement that the first real steps towards the establishment of the Jewish National Home was begun.
> 
> A theme to this central point is the idea that in they would erect a right for the Jewish People (worldwide) to gain refuge in their homeland; a place that they could control and protect against the excesses of the so many that used the color of law to exploit the Jewish People.  While today much of the original intent to protect and preserve the Jewish People and their culture has faded and ceased to exist; all the rights of the Jewish People that were derived from the linage of the Balfour Declaration and onward remained in full force.  And this included what was to become known as the "right of self-determination."
> 
> Just as, at the time the Mandates were created, the applicable phrase was "former territories of the Ottoman Empire,"  so it became after the termination of the British Mandate, "former territories to which the Mandate Applied."  And this phrase became popular by the post-1948 War Arabs of Palestine _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_ to which they lay claim.
> 
> "The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."  (The Arab League -- Arab Higher Committee)   Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what part of all this refutes my post?
Click to expand...







 ALL OF IT AND EVERY POST YOU ARE LIABLE TO MAKE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.  IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE JUST MUD FLINGING AND INCITING HOPING TO GET OTHER PEOPLE KICKED OF THE BOARD.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is a trick.  (An intentional misdirection from the facts.)



P F Tinmore said:


> So, what part of all this refutes my post?


*(COMMENT)*

You write a negative comment:  "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders."

I write a comment back establishing a direct association between mandate and its application to a specific territory,

Then you write back, as if in automated fashion, that "Palestine Order in Council" does not refute your original comment.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a trick.  (An intentional misdirection from the facts.)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what part of all this refutes my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You write a negative comment:  "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders."
> 
> I write a comment back establishing a direct association between mandate and its application to a specific territory,
> 
> Then you write back, as if in automated fashion, that "Palestine Order in Council" does not refute your original comment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.

That does not refute my post.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a trick.  (An intentional misdirection from the facts.)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what part of all this refutes my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You write a negative comment:  "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders."
> 
> I write a comment back establishing a direct association between mandate and its application to a specific territory,
> 
> Then you write back, as if in automated fashion, that "Palestine Order in Council" does not refute your original comment.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
> 
> That does not refute my post.
Click to expand...







 So the fact that the reply shows that the mandate defined and delineated the borders of the mandate of Palestine, And then points to the actual mandate itself that reiterates the fact that the mandate defines the borders as those the LoN see fit to apply destroys your stupidity and tears apart your post. The fact that you cant abide being proven wrong every time you post is getting to you and now you are ignoring the evidence placed in front of you.

Even the birds in the sky refute your post


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh ---WOW!



P F Tinmore said:


> Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
> That does not refute my post.


*(QUESTIONS)*

•  When you say the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, exactly where was this place _(that you are referring to and)_ called Palestine?
•  Under what sovereign authority was this Palestine?
•  What are the boundaries of "inside Palestinian territory?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh ---WOW!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
> That does not refute my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> •  When you say the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, exactly where was this place _(that you are referring to and)_ called Palestine?
> •  Under what sovereign authority was this Palestine?
> •  What are the boundaries of "inside Palestinian territory?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You're joking, right?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh no, I don't think it is confusing at all.
> 
> When you say:  "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders." you are implying that there were no specific territorial limits associated with the League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was apportioned by the Treaty of Sèvres.   In Article 25 of the Mandate, the Emirate of Transjordan (1921-1946), was British-controlled territory, under the Mandate.
> 
> Specific to our discussion, the Mandate of Palestine comprised territory that now consists of modern-day Jordan  , Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Paulet-Newcombe Agreement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Paulet-Newcombe Line*, also known as the *Franco-British Boundary Agreements*, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma.[1]The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.
> 
> The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms in the 1920 "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia", signed in Paris, on 23 December 1920. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground.[3]
> 
> The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.
> SOURCE:   Wiki Paulet–Newcombe_Agreement
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 71469​Approximately (≈) 76%-77% of the Mandate (for protectorate reasons) called Transjordan --- was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British _[territory East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq)]_.  At the time the first Palestine Order in Council was published, the definition was:
> View attachment 71471​The phrase, "the territories to which the Mandate applies" (or variations thereof) flow directly from the definition published in the Palestine Order in Council.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes it is true that a Mandate (itself) is an order from authority _(legal commission for the administration)_, or a politically recognized commission; however, every order, mandate, or commission has its limitations -- with the question of:  to what does it apply?   The limit of the Mandate for Palestine was a territorial boundary --- in 1922 (when the Palestine Order in Council was written), the nomenclature for the territory was derivative from the Treaty of Sevres:
> 
> *SECTION VII --- SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
> ARTICLE 95*.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.​
> *(CENTRAL POINT)*
> 
> There is an argument to be made that the San Remo Peace Conference _(and the adoption of the Balfour Declaration)_ was the pivotal point in the creation of an associated territory --- and an Administration for that territory.  Although the Supreme Council did not have a clear set of boundaries established yet, they were confident that they could work with an approximation until a Joint Boundary Survey could hammer-out the lines.  Hence, the phrase, _"the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them"_ was put into use.  Of course --- this was later established by Colonels Paulette and Newman.  And it was at that point the, the adoption of the 1923 Paulette-Newman Agreement that the first real steps towards the establishment of the Jewish National Home was begun.
> 
> A theme to this central point is the idea that in they would erect a right for the Jewish People (worldwide) to gain refuge in their homeland; a place that they could control and protect against the excesses of the so many that used the color of law to exploit the Jewish People.  While today much of the original intent to protect and preserve the Jewish People and their culture has faded and ceased to exist; all the rights of the Jewish People that were derived from the linage of the Balfour Declaration and onward remained in full force.  And this included what was to become known as the "right of self-determination."
> 
> Just as, at the time the Mandates were created, the applicable phrase was "former territories of the Ottoman Empire,"  so it became after the termination of the British Mandate, "former territories to which the Mandate Applied."  And this phrase became popular by the post-1948 War Arabs of Palestine _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_ to which they lay claim.
> 
> "The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."  (The Arab League -- Arab Higher Committee)   Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what part of all this refutes my post?
Click to expand...

The part you read and are now stuttering and mumbling about.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Hell no, I'm not joking.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh ---WOW!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
> That does not refute my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> •  When you say the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, exactly where was this place _(that you are referring to and)_ called Palestine?
> •  Under what sovereign authority was this Palestine?
> •  What are the boundaries of "inside Palestinian territory?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking, right?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You implied that Palestine, prior to the establishment of the Allied Powers agreed upon boundaries had a specific territory.  I would like to know the boundary of the Arab communities that called themselves Palestinians in a pre-1920 Middle East.

In 1922, when the Mandate was written, the boundary of Palestine had not been established yet.  How did the Arabs of the region know who would be Palestinian and who would not?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Palestine and where the Palestinians lived was in the Ottoman Filastin Risalesi military district. The map was drawn before Ataturk, hence it is in Turkish but using the Arabic script.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hell no, I'm not joking.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh ---WOW!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
> That does not refute my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> •  When you say the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, exactly where was this place _(that you are referring to and)_ called Palestine?
> •  Under what sovereign authority was this Palestine?
> •  What are the boundaries of "inside Palestinian territory?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You implied that Palestine, prior to the establishment of the Allied Powers agreed upon boundaries had a specific territory.  I would like to know the boundary of the Arab communities that called themselves Palestinians in a pre-1920 Middle East.
> 
> In 1922, when the Mandate was written, the boundary of Palestine had not been established yet.  How did the Arabs of the region know who would be Palestinian and who would not?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Straw man argument.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

This map does not have anything to do with Palestine.  The territorial delimitation in the pre-1922 period was estimated in San Remo; but the lines were not established.  The politics and the critical diplomatic decisions  were evolving.

The British-French Boundary (*Paulet–Newcombe Agreement*) Commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.

The Map you inserted only depicts the Vilayet of Beirut _(and not all of it --- at that)_ and the Sanjuk of Jerusalem.  From Tyre (Sour) and south to the vicinity Arish.  And it only depicts routes and strongholds that are west of the Central Mountain Ridge _(Upper Galilee to south of the  Central Plain)_.

Jund Filastin (Arabic: جند فلسطين‎, “military district of Palestine“) was one of the military districts of the Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphate province of Bilad al-Sham (Syria), organized soon after the Muslim conquest of the Levant in the 630s.  A "Military District" in the Ottoman Empire was not a political subdivision.  And this map depicts a military supply routes (MSRs) from 13 Centuries ago (630).  

*7th century*

*•  614* – The Persian Empire under general Shahrbaraz captures and sacks Jerusalem; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is damaged by fire and the True Cross is captured.
*•  629* – Byzantine Emperor Heraclius retakes Jerusalem, after the decisive defeat of the Sassanid Empire at the Battle of Nineveh (627). 
*•  638* – the conquest of Jerusalem by the armies of the Rashidun Caliphate (Islamic Empire) under Caliph Umar Ibn el-Khatab. Jews are permitted to return to the city after 568 years of Roman and Byzantine rule.​


montelatici said:


> Palestine and where the Palestinians lived was in the Ottoman Filastin Risalesi military district. The map was drawn before Ataturk, hence it is in Turkish but using the Arabic script.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the Map is quite old.  It does not depict the 1920 Palestine or the refined 1924 Palestine, as known to the Allied Powers.  If your old map was accurate, then the most of the West Bank and none of the territory to the East of the Dead Sea and on the Eastern Slope of of the Central Mountain Ridge.

I wouldn't put too much faith in this Map as convincing or persuasive.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Ah, but it does answer your question.  You can bullshit all you want, but you asked a question and you got the correct answer.  Don't play games punk.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

You didn't get the right answer.



montelatici said:


> Ah, but it does answer your question.  You can bullshit all you want, but you asked a question and you got the correct answer.  Don't play games punk.


*(COMMENT)*

If that is the right answer then today's Arab Palestinians of the West Bank are not of Palestinians Linage at all.

But I know better.  Time plays an important part in determining who is who; and when they were.

For more than 8 Centuries, what we call the Arab Palestinian today, were Ottoman Citizens.  In the Ottoman Empire, there was simply no Ottoman/Turk Political Subdivision called "Palestine."  And no Map from 13 Centuries ago will change that.  _(No matter how many names you might call me!)_

What we call the Arabs of Palestine today, is much different than the Arabs of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.  And that is still much different again from a inhabitants of 13 Centuries ago.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh ---WOW!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
> That does not refute my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> •  When you say the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, exactly where was this place _(that you are referring to and)_ called Palestine?
> •  Under what sovereign authority was this Palestine?
> •  What are the boundaries of "inside Palestinian territory?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking, right?
Click to expand...








 NO he is serious, lets see you make a complete fool of yourself in public so musch so that you wont want to come out ever again


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hell no, I'm not joking.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh ---WOW!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
> That does not refute my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> •  When you say the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, exactly where was this place _(that you are referring to and)_ called Palestine?
> •  Under what sovereign authority was this Palestine?
> •  What are the boundaries of "inside Palestinian territory?"
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You implied that Palestine, prior to the establishment of the Allied Powers agreed upon boundaries had a specific territory.  I would like to know the boundary of the Arab communities that called themselves Palestinians in a pre-1920 Middle East.
> 
> In 1922, when the Mandate was written, the boundary of Palestine had not been established yet.  How did the Arabs of the region know who would be Palestinian and who would not?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man argument.
Click to expand...






 No a valid question to see if you are on your toes.  Guess not


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Ah, but it does answer your question.  You can bullshit all you want, but you asked a question and you got the correct answer.  Don't play games punk.







 WRONG AGAIN FREDDY as it is not a map of Palestine by your own wordsit os a map of "Ottoman Filastin Risalesi military district" predating the Ottomans.

 You are the punk, and the foul mouthed sorry excuse for a human being that infests these boards


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> And this map depicts a military supply routes (MSRs) from 13 Centuries ago (630).



Well I know the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires were fairly advanced, but I never knew they had RAILWAYS back in the 7th century....


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger,  et al,

That is not the map I posted.  That is a 1924 General Military Map (War Office).



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this map depicts a military supply routes (MSRs) from 13 Centuries ago (630).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I know the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires were fairly advanced, but I never knew they had RAILWAYS back in the 7th century....
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Some information never changes from one century to the next.  Geographic Names for Maps are not necessarily associated with the Civil Administration, or the boundaries in which it depicts.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> That is not the map I posted.  That is a 1924 General Military Map (War Office).
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this map depicts a military supply routes (MSRs) from 13 Centuries ago (630).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I know the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires were fairly advanced, but I never knew they had RAILWAYS back in the 7th century....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Some information never changes from one century to the next.  Geographic Names for Maps are not necessarily associated with the Civil Administration, or the boundaries in which it depicts.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You never posted a map, you commented on the map posted in #723



RoccoR said:


> The Map you inserted only depicts the Vilayet of Beirut _(and not all of it --- at that)_ and the Sanjuk of Jerusalem. From Tyre (Sour) and south to the vicinity Arish. And it only depicts routes and strongholds that are west of the Central Mountain Ridge _(Upper Galilee to south of the Central Plain)_.



to whit,



RoccoR said:


> And this map depicts a military supply routes (MSRs) from 13 Centuries ago (630).



The map originally cited contained clear railway lines and I produced a more modern map that confirmed the same railway lines, and added my sarcastic comment.

Does that help any?


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger,  et al,

Same Basic Map, just with new information on it.

The MSR in that region of the world have remained the same for centuries.  The topography hasn't changed.  It is very similar to how the UN Map 103.1 (1946) Map is used as the Basic Map, and then it is just annotated with new information.  That Map is still in general use today.  Just as the older maps of the Hejaz Railway were annotated onto much older maps.

Without regard to how you attempt to scramble the information, it is a Regional Map of Palestine and not a map of a political subdivision called Palestine.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

This an Ottoman map of Palestine (Filastin)  from a an Ottoman Government publication called 
Filastin Risalesi, (Treatise on Palestine) from 1915.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> This an Ottoman map of Palestine (Filastin)  from a an Ottoman Government publication called
> Filastin Risalesi, (Treatise on Palestine) from 1915.



Yes, yes, Monty. That's all very nice. The photo is one you have cut and pasted many times for no apparent reason.

You neglected to include a link for obvious reasons.

Afternoon Map: July 2013


The first map in this collection was published in _Filastin Risalesi_, an official publication of the Ottoman army intended to be used as an officer’s manual for the Palestine region.The manual itself is a social, topographical, demographic and economic survey of Palestine circa its time of publication, 1331 (Rumi).[2]It is actually a quite unremarkable work, and resembles much of the ‘geographical’ literature published in both Ottoman and Arabic in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.The map itself, just as the rest of the book, is published in Ottoman Turkish, and includes both topographical features, such as rivers and mountains (the darker the color, the higher the altitude), as well as all of the major towns and cities.


----------



## montelatici

And?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> And?



And.... what is served by cutting and pasting as you do, without attribution and without some relevance to the thread?


----------



## montelatici

The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Without regard to how you attempt to scramble the information, it is a Regional Map of Palestine and not a map of a political subdivision called Palestine.



No such attempt, just your Zionist paranoia over reacting to a poor attempt at humour.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.








 No the thread is discussing the creation of Israel the UN and British mandate.

 So why do you go off topic all the time.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without regard to how you attempt to scramble the information, it is a Regional Map of Palestine and not a map of a political subdivision called Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such attempt, just your Zionist paranoia over reacting to a poor attempt at humour.
Click to expand...





 Rat boy is getting his ass whuped again so resorts to the plaintive cry of the failed neo Marxist    Zionist paranoia in an attempt at making people believe his opponents are mentally challenged.


 LOSER


----------



## Mindful

Why is this even up for discussion?

Had the creation  of Iraq and Jordan been talked about yet?


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Why is this even up for discussion?
> 
> Had the creation  of Iraq and Jordan been talked about yet?


Certainly has, have you not been paying attention?


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this even up for discussion?
> 
> Had the creation  of Iraq and Jordan been talked about yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly has, have you not been paying attention?
Click to expand...

 
Clutching at straws? lol


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.


Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.

Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the thread is discussing the creation of Israel the UN and British mandate.
> 
> So why do you go off topic all the time.
Click to expand...

That's easy. The Mandate did not create Israel.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the thread is discussing the creation of Israel the UN and British mandate.
> 
> So why do you go off topic all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's easy. The Mandate did not create Israel.
Click to expand...


Who said it did?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the thread is discussing the creation of Israel the UN and British mandate.
> 
> So why do you go off topic all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's easy. The Mandate did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it did?
Click to expand...

It has been said that the Mandate gave the land to the Jews. Not true.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> 
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
Click to expand...






 And where is the 1923, 1948 and 1988 maps drawn up by Palestine then ?

 A set of co-ordinates is as good as a map and the LoN reported just these when in delineated the land granted for the Jewish NATIONal home.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the thread is discussing the creation of Israel the UN and British mandate.
> 
> So why do you go off topic all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's easy. The Mandate did not create Israel.
Click to expand...





 SAYS WHO   as the mandate I keep throwing your way does many times, and you ignore it at your peril


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the thread is discussing the creation of Israel the UN and British mandate.
> 
> So why do you go off topic all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's easy. The Mandate did not create Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been said that the Mandate gave the land to the Jews. Not true.
Click to expand...







 Then it didn't give the land to the arab muslims for Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Iran either. As they are all part of the LoN mandate system.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.



P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949. 

The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are not listening.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).

From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.  

On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.

Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I see I can't give you too much information.  The Map is an example of one of the newer UN Source Maps _(indicates as "in the future)_.  The attached Maps to Posting #755 above, are also examples of the newer Maps often used in UN Reports.

To my knowledge, the parties to the conflict were too busy to survey and draw new maps in 1948 while pushing the FEBA forwar; the IDF in pursuit of the retreating Arab Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
How so? What was the violation?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
Click to expand...







 Where's your map of Palestine then accepted by the UN as the true extent of the declaration of 1988.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
> How so? What was the violation?
Click to expand...





*Article 2*
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.


The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
*All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.*
*All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.*
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
*The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.*
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.



 Highlighted for you, that is if you bother to read the UN charter


----------



## Mindful

Before there was the UN there was the League of Nations, and at the San Remo conference they signed the San Remo Accords in 1920, where they decided that in the Levant, there would be a Jewish homeland where the Jewish people would be allowed to build a nation-state on their “ancestral lands.” Now the boundaries were not completely set here, but there were some very specific landmarks mentioned. Also its important to note that under actual international law, UN charter article 80 was very clear in that we cannot change it and that it takes priority over anything written afterwards. You can Google it yourself but basically it says very clearly from the river to the sea, it is Jewish land under international law open to Jewish settlement. By the way, they also created several Arab states during this time period. I don’t see much complaining about Iraq, Jordan and Syria though.

Israellycool.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 2*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 
> The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
> *All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.*
> *All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.*
> All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
> *The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.*
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
> 
> 
> 
> Highlighted for you, that is if you bother to read the UN charter
Click to expand...

The Arab states entered Palestine to help the Palestinians.

What was illegal about that?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 2*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 
> The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
> *All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.*
> *All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.*
> All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
> *The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.*
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
> 
> 
> 
> Highlighted for you, that is if you bother to read the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab states entered Palestine to help the Palestinians.
> 
> What was illegal about that?
Click to expand...

Trolling Stormfront for your history lessons?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 2*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 
> The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
> *All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.*
> *All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.*
> All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
> *The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.*
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
> 
> 
> 
> Highlighted for you, that is if you bother to read the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab states entered Palestine to help the Palestinians.
> 
> What was illegal about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling Stormfront for your history lessons?
Click to expand...

What do you mean Stormfront?

The second contest began with the *invasion of Palestine* by regular Arab armies on May 15, 1948,...

Israel Studies An Anthology: War of 1948 | Jewish Virtual Library​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 2*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 
> The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
> *All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.*
> *All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.*
> All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
> *The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.*
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
> 
> 
> 
> Highlighted for you, that is if you bother to read the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab states entered Palestine to help the Palestinians.
> 
> What was illegal about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling Stormfront for your history lessons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean Stormfront?
> 
> The second contest began with the *invasion of Palestine* by regular Arab armies on May 15, 1948,...
> 
> Israel Studies An Anthology: War of 1948 | Jewish Virtual Library​
Click to expand...

What do I mean Stormfront?

What do you think I meant?


----------



## independent minded

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate did no such thing.  The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria.  Jewish people lived in Syria.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon.  Jewish people lived in Lebanon.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan.  Jewish people lived in Jordan.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?
> 
> Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land.  Arab Muslims lived in Israel.
> 
> Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking land from the native inhabitants and giving land in the Middle East to invading Europeans was the hypocrisy and in contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Jews may or may not have a right to a national homeland, but if they do, but not at the expense of another group's home. Setting aside a part of Germany for the Jews may have been appropriate, for example.
Click to expand...


I don't think that setting a part of Germany aside as a homeland for the Jews would've been appropriate, at all.  The Jewish people, just as others, have the right to a country of their own, and so do the Palestinians.  The only safe, sane, and sensible solution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian debacle is the two-state solution:  Israel and Palestine ( which would be comprised of west Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem), *alongside* each other!


----------



## montelatici

independent minded said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate did no such thing.  The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria.  Jewish people lived in Syria.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon.  Jewish people lived in Lebanon.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan.  Jewish people lived in Jordan.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?
> 
> Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land.  Arab Muslims lived in Israel.
> 
> Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking land from the native inhabitants and giving land in the Middle East to invading Europeans was the hypocrisy and in contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Jews may or may not have a right to a national homeland, but if they do, but not at the expense of another group's home. Setting aside a part of Germany for the Jews may have been appropriate, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that setting a part of Germany aside as a homeland for the Jews would've been appropriate, at all.  The Jewish people, just as others, have the right to a country of their own, and so do the Palestinians.  The only safe, sane, and sensible solution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian debacle is the two-state solution:  Israel and Palestine ( which would be comprised of west Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem), *alongside* each other!
Click to expand...


What was sane about taking land away from the native inhabitants and transferring European Jews to rule over the native inhabitants?  I think such a plan dreamed up today would be rated as as a non-starter.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The aggressors were the Jewish terrorists.  The intervention of the Arab armies were the Palestinian's only hope to prevent the Jewish terrorist's  plans to ethnically cleanse or otherwise eliminate the non-Jews. 

Recently declassified British intelligence reports confirm these facts.  Repeating Zionist propaganda does not make it true.  Especially now that source material is available.

*British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
*Declassified UK reports* document build-up of conflict, *Jewish* public's endorsement of their leaders' *pro-terrorist stance *and declare armies of *Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'

After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists* of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists.*" But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was discussing maps of Palestine, get with the program. You need to look up the word "relevance" lying Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of maps. It is interesting that 1948 is the biggest year in Israel's. It was the foundation of the state.
> Funny that nobody bothered to make a map. It seems that a 1948 map of Israel does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The aggressors were the Jewish terrorists.  The intervention of the Arab armies were the Palestinian's only hope to prevent the Jewish terrorist's  plans to ethnically cleanse or otherwise eliminate the non-Jews.
> 
> Recently declassified British intelligence reports confirm these facts.  Repeating Zionist propaganda does not make it true.  Especially now that source material is available.
> 
> *British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> *Declassified UK reports* document build-up of conflict, *Jewish* public's endorsement of their leaders' *pro-terrorist stance *and declare armies of *Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'
> 
> After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists* of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists.*" But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948
Click to expand...

The above is another cut and paste you cut and paste multiple times across multiple threads.

It does nothing to address the instigation of a hoped-for war of genocide waged by Arab-Moslem armies. 

Spamming multiple threads with multiple cutting and pasting of your spam does nothing to address the salient points.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 2*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 
> The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
> *All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.*
> *All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.*
> All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
> *The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.*
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
> 
> 
> 
> Highlighted for you, that is if you bother to read the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab states entered Palestine to help the Palestinians.
> 
> What was illegal about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling Stormfront for your history lessons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean Stormfront?
> 
> The second contest began with the *invasion of Palestine* by regular Arab armies on May 15, 1948,...
> 
> Israel Studies An Anthology: War of 1948 | Jewish Virtual Library​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do I mean Stormfront?
> 
> What do you think I meant?
Click to expand...

I've never been to Stornfront. Why did you bring it up?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, given the sequence of events, and the timeline in the establishment, I'm not sure it is "funny" at all.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The successor government (UNPC), established in November 1947 (Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence) Partition Plan, went to work beginning In the early days of January 1948.  At that point, the modified UN Map No. 103.1 (b) Survey of Palestine, April 1946, was being used on the Regional Scale to capture the entire territory under the Mandate.  The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the British Mandate for UN prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan was the last survey on which a UN Map was developed.  The final boundaries, as described in Part II of the plan, that were to be modified and correcting  the political subdivision for municipalities and villages, had not been reported; interrupted by the external interference and invasion by the Arab League lasting into the next year.  The last of the Armistice Lines were established in April 1949.
> 
> The Basic UN Map 103.1b was one of the most common Maps used on which to plot data.  It was used well into the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In the future, we will probably see more satellite Imagery, Gas & Oil Surveys, Tradition Modified Archive Imagery, become more prevalent.
> 
> View attachment 73881​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but that is not a 1948 map of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 2*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 
> The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
> *All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.*
> *All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.*
> All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
> *The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.*
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
> 
> 
> 
> Highlighted for you, that is if you bother to read the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab states entered Palestine to help the Palestinians.
> 
> What was illegal about that?
Click to expand...







 The fact that Palestinians did not exist in any nation made it illegal. And if you read the reports the arab league declared war on the Jews in 1947 with the intention of wiping them out and taking all the land.


 Now read article 3 again

*All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Clear enough for you now.*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel declared independence on 15 May 1948.  The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.  There are no maps because during the period 15 Map to 31 December 1948, the FEBA _(Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_ was in motion, until the cease fire was establish and Armistice Agreements set.  The Maps used to set the Demarcation Lines are much larger scale that the UN Map 103.1b Map, and they use 8-Digit Military Grid Reference System (MGRS).
> 
> From 1949, when the Armistice Lines were established, until the Armistice Lines were replaced with Internationally Recognized Boundaries by Treaty (Egypt and Jordan), the Annexations (Golan Heights and Jerusalem), and the resurrection of the Blue Line last published by the UN in June 2000; and based on the deployment of the IDF prior to 14 March 1978.
> 
> On 7 June 2007 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts.
> 
> Armistice Commissions routinely assess when the Armistice Line needs to be updated.  In the case of the Blue Line, it has been updated in 2011 and 2015.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.​
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 2*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 
> The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
> All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
> *All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.*
> *All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.*
> All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
> *The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.*
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
> 
> 
> 
> Highlighted for you, that is if you bother to read the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab states entered Palestine to help the Palestinians.
> 
> What was illegal about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling Stormfront for your history lessons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you mean Stormfront?
> 
> The second contest began with the *invasion of Palestine* by regular Arab armies on May 15, 1948,...
> 
> Israel Studies An Anthology: War of 1948 | Jewish Virtual Library​
Click to expand...






 Which was illegal as the land was still under mandate at that time. So the UN  should have had the US drop the third bomb on mecca to teach the arab muslims a lesson.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> independent minded said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate did no such thing.  The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria.  Jewish people lived in Syria.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon.  Jewish people lived in Lebanon.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?
> 
> The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan.  Jewish people lived in Jordan.  Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?
> 
> Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land.  Arab Muslims lived in Israel.
> 
> Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking land from the native inhabitants and giving land in the Middle East to invading Europeans was the hypocrisy and in contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Jews may or may not have a right to a national homeland, but if they do, but not at the expense of another group's home. Setting aside a part of Germany for the Jews may have been appropriate, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that setting a part of Germany aside as a homeland for the Jews would've been appropriate, at all.  The Jewish people, just as others, have the right to a country of their own, and so do the Palestinians.  The only safe, sane, and sensible solution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian debacle is the two-state solution:  Israel and Palestine ( which would be comprised of west Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem), *alongside* each other!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was sane about taking land away from the native inhabitants and transferring European Jews to rule over the native inhabitants?  I think such a plan dreamed up today would be rated as as a non-starter.
Click to expand...






 Today we would see that the majority of arab muslims are illegal immigrants and would be telling them to go back home.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region _(Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? What was the violation?
Click to expand...

*(ANSWER)*

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.  Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” _(a Successor State to the Mandatory)_. 


*Article 1(2) UN Charter*

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​*Article 2(4) UN Charter*

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​*Article 2(7) UN Charter*

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. ​
The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant _(until such time as they are able to stand alone)_ and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation.  At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel,   Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.  

*(COMMENT)*

In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or _Jus ad bellum_.  This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force.   In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state." 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region _(Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.  Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” _(a Successor State to the Mandatory)_.
> 
> *Article 1(2) UN Charter*
> 
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​*Article 2(4) UN Charter*
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​*Article 2(7) UN Charter*
> 
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​
> The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant _(until such time as they are able to stand alone)_ and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation.  At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel,   Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or _Jus ad bellum_.  This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force.   In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...​
There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region _(Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.  Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” _(a Successor State to the Mandatory)_.
> 
> *Article 1(2) UN Charter*
> 
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​*Article 2(4) UN Charter*
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​*Article 2(7) UN Charter*
> 
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​
> The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant _(until such time as they are able to stand alone)_ and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation.  At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel,   Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or _Jus ad bellum_.  This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force.   In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.​
The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region _(Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.  Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” _(a Successor State to the Mandatory)_.
> 
> *Article 1(2) UN Charter*
> 
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​*Article 2(4) UN Charter*
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​*Article 2(7) UN Charter*
> 
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​
> The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant _(until such time as they are able to stand alone)_ and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation.  At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel,   Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or _Jus ad bellum_.  This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force.   In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.​
Britain passed the torch to the UNPC not to Israel.

There are some other problems with your successor state thing.

One, there needs to be a treaty ceding territory to the successor state.

Another is a problem with citizenship.

*Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations*
The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,





P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...
> 
> 
> 
> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCES)*

*  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;  Article 1(2), UN Charter.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
*PART I*
_*Article 1*_​
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.​*(COMMENT)*

Self-determination is applied to everyone.  The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement:  "All peoples have the right of self-determination."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.
> 
> 
> 
> The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCE)*

*Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties*
Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978

*Article 2*
Use of terms​
1.For the purposes of the present Convention:

(b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;

(c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;

(e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;

(f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;​
*(COMMENT)*

As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces.  Notice that the international law (_supra_ --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory."  The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.

*(EPILOG)*

What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner.    In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians _(who rejected participation in the Government Administration)_ have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.  

Most Respectfully,
R 


​


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.




Wait.  Wait.  Weren't you the one so vehemently arguing not more than a few weeks ago that human rights aren't dependent on someone granting them -- but that they are inherent and inviolable?  I'm certain that was you.  

So - now you are saying that some people have no rights to self-determination as an inherent human right?  

What gives?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Wait.  Weren't you the one so vehemently arguing not more than a few weeks ago that human rights aren't dependent on someone granting them -- but that they are inherent and inviolable?  I'm certain that was you.
> 
> So - now you are saying that some people have no rights to self-determination as an inherent human right?
> 
> What gives?
Click to expand...

Your first statement is correct.

Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.



Oh seriously?  You are in the "Jews are not a people" camp?  Groan.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...
> 
> 
> 
> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> *  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;  Article 1(2), UN Charter.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *PART I*
> _*Article 1*_​
> 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
> 
> 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Self-determination is applied to everyone.  The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement:  "All peoples have the right of self-determination."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> *Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties*
> Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978
> 
> *Article 2*
> Use of terms​1.For the purposes of the present Convention:
> 
> (b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;
> 
> (c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
> 
> (d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
> 
> (e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;
> 
> (f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces.  Notice that the international law (_supra_ --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory."  The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.
> 
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner.    In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians _(who rejected participation in the Government Administration)_ have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh seriously?  You are in the "Jews are not a people" camp?  Groan.
Click to expand...

They aren't in the sense of a nationality.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> They aren't in the sense of a nationality.



Why not?  What is your criteria?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't in the sense of a nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  What is your criteria?
Click to expand...

They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region _(Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.  Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” _(a Successor State to the Mandatory)_.
> 
> *Article 1(2) UN Charter*
> 
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​*Article 2(4) UN Charter*
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​*Article 2(7) UN Charter*
> 
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​
> The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant _(until such time as they are able to stand alone)_ and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation.  At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel,   Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or _Jus ad bellum_.  This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force.   In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...​
> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.
Click to expand...







 Then you have not read the UN charter or the UN resolutions that speak in general terms and apply to all valid nations that are full members.  Palestine is a mickey mouse nation that refuses to exercise free determination because it knows it cant survive without being bailed out all the time. That is why the UN constantly reminds them they need have the right to self determination and should be exercising that right as they promised they would in 1988.    We are still waiting 28 years later for the Palestinians to stop being violent and firing illegal weapons at Israel, so time to issue demands to them that will result in the loss of what little they have and being sent to whatever islamonazi nation will accept them


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region _(Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.  Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” _(a Successor State to the Mandatory)_.
> 
> *Article 1(2) UN Charter*
> 
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​*Article 2(4) UN Charter*
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​*Article 2(7) UN Charter*
> 
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​
> The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant _(until such time as they are able to stand alone)_ and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation.  At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel,   Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or _Jus ad bellum_.  This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force.   In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.​
> The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.
Click to expand...






 CORRECT under the Mandate of Palestine  set by the lands legal sovereign owners the LoN. The administration could change hands at any time during the term of the mandate


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination" as recommended by the General Assembly (Steps Preparatory to Independence) which the Arabs of Palestine rejected; as well as, the right of the Allied Powers to determine the future of the region _(Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Aggressors of the Arab League attacked hours later in violation of Article 2 of the Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? What was the violation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.  Israel became, through the coordination and execution of the Steps Preparatory to Independence, exercised its right of self-determination and became a “newly independent State” _(a Successor State to the Mandatory)_.
> 
> *Article 1(2) UN Charter*
> 
> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​*Article 2(4) UN Charter*
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​*Article 2(7) UN Charter*
> 
> Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​
> The Arab Palestinian never maintained effective control of --- or taken possession of --- the territory to which the Mandate Applied.  It never followed through with the Article 22(4) of the League of Nations Covenant _(until such time as they are able to stand alone)_ and subsequently lost their provisional recognized as an independent nation.  At every stage of the Administration, right through to the 1948 Independence of Israel,   Refused to take part or participate in any aspect of the Governance Process.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In this time frame 1940 thru 1950, countries like the various Mandates ultimately created followed a "Just War Doctrine" or _Jus ad bellum_.  This was particularly true in the Middle East; indeed, much of the territory and sovereignty of Arabia, Europe, and the Americas follow from the Use of Armed Force.   In the case of the Arab League attack on Israel on its Declaration of Independence, the Arab League uses the pretext of the attack as a Humanitarian intervention – where the Arab League may use force with Israel to protect the Arab Palestinian nationals of the "newly independent state."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.​
> Britain passed the torch to the UNPC not to Israel.
> 
> There are some other problems with your successor state thing.
> 
> One, there needs to be a treaty ceding territory to the successor state.
> 
> Another is a problem with citizenship.
> 
> *Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations*
> The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181
Click to expand...







 And in the time before the British left and the UNPC took control Israel declared its intentions, leaving the UNPC with the land of gaza and the west bank to administer. Only to find it had been invaded and occupied by the arab league.


 That was done in 1923 when the LoN declared the land was Jewish.


No problem if you read the section you link to



*Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations*
1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that *no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State*. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.



 In other words the Jews could do what the arab's did and evict every arab from the state of Israel. Which is why the UN does nothing about Israel , they could not cope with 10 million Palestinian refugees demanding money to buy weapons


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Wait.  Weren't you the one so vehemently arguing not more than a few weeks ago that human rights aren't dependent on someone granting them -- but that they are inherent and inviolable?  I'm certain that was you.
> 
> So - now you are saying that some people have no rights to self-determination as an inherent human right?
> 
> What gives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your first statement is correct.
> 
> Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.
Click to expand...







 And the whole proves that you deny the Jews all human rights, civil rights and religious rights you grant to others because of your racism and anti Semitism.

 There is only one definition of people  and that is human beings singular or multiple that exist on this planet. You want to alter that to take the Jews out of the equation


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't in the sense of a nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  What is your criteria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.
Click to expand...








 So just like the muslims, Christians, Buddhists et al.

 So why don't you racially abuse the rest of the world in the same way you do the Jews and deny them their human rights ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...
> 
> 
> 
> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> *  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;  Article 1(2), UN Charter.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *PART I*
> _*Article 1*_​
> 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
> 
> 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Self-determination is applied to everyone.  The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement:  "All peoples have the right of self-determination."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> *Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties*
> Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978
> 
> *Article 2*
> Use of terms​1.For the purposes of the present Convention:
> 
> (b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;
> 
> (c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
> 
> (d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
> 
> (e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;
> 
> (f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces.  Notice that the international law (_supra_ --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory."  The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.
> 
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner.    In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians _(who rejected participation in the Government Administration)_ have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh seriously?  You are in the "Jews are not a people" camp?  Groan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't in the sense of a nationality.
Click to expand...







 They are as much a people as the Palestinians then, or the Americans, Australians, Egyptians  etc.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

I don't think you can make that statement.  In fact, if you go to school for the Administration and Investigation of Stateless People, you will find that the state of the Jewish People, prior to Independence of Israel, were an example nationals without a territory.

*NATIONALITY.* That quality or character which arises from. the fact of a person'. beIpnging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, ; especially with' reference to allegiance; while domiCile determines his civil statu8. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. According to Savigny, "nationality" is also used as opposed to "territoriality," *for the purpose of distinguishing the case of a nation having no national territory*; e. g., the Jews. 8 Save Syst. § 346: Westl. Priv. Int. Law, 5.​Oddly enough, the Arabs of Palestine were a people without a territory.  They were considered "habitual residences" and former citizens of the Empire.  When the  first rules for nationality and citizenship were written for the territory under which the Mandate Applied, those rules had to include BOTH Arabs and Jews.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your second statement shows that you are confused over the meaning of a people.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh seriously?  You are in the "Jews are not a people" camp?  Groan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't in the sense of a nationality.
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCE)*

Law Dictionary: What is NATIONALITY? definition of NATIONALITY (Black's Law Dictionary)
Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
*What is NATIONALITY?*
That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person’s belonging to a nation or state.Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization. According to Savigny, “nationality” is also used as opposed to “territoriality,” for the purpose of distinguishing the case of a nation having no national territory; _e.g._, the Jews. 8 Sav. Syst. § 346; Westl. Priv. Int. Law, 5.  *Black´s*Law*Dictionary*,*3rd* Edition,*1933, p. 1222.
Nationality is also defined by the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights as:

_“[t]he political and legal bond that links a person to a given State and binds him to it with ties of loyalty and fidelity, entitling him to diplomatic protection from that State”. (Castillo‑Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Judgment of May 1999, IACHR [ser.C] No. 52 1999.) *Source:* UNHCR Handbook - Nationality & Statelessness _​
UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) » Social and Human Sciences » 

*CITIZENSHIP *can be defined as _"the status of having the right to participate in and to be represented in politics."_ 1 It is a collection of rights and obligations that give individuals a formal juridical identity. T.H. Marshall, whose work has long dominated the debates about social citizenship, considered citizenship as _"a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who posses the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed."_​
*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish are a people.
*Conference of San Remo 1920, *international meeting convened at San Remo, to decide the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, considered the Jewish People as a people.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;​
Most people are considered nationals by operation of only one State’s laws – usually either the laws of the State in which the person was born (_jus soli_) or the laws of the State of which the person’s parents were nationals when the individual was born (_jus sanguinis_).  In the case of the Jewish People, 1922 and 1948, whether or not they immigrated to the Territory under the Mandate with a valid nationality, the Administration of Palestine was responsible for enacting a nationality law to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian Citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

It is important to understand that Nationality is one-half the inverse of Statelessness _(Citizenship being the other half)_.  If you look at Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention includes the internationally recognized definition of a stateless person: _“a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”.   _It is the case that people who fall within the scope Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention are sometimes referred to as _de jure _stateless persons.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...
> 
> 
> 
> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> *  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;  Article 1(2), UN Charter.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *PART I*
> _*Article 1*_​
> 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
> 
> 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Self-determination is applied to everyone.  The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement:  "All peoples have the right of self-determination."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> *Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties*
> Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978
> 
> *Article 2*
> Use of terms​1.For the purposes of the present Convention:
> 
> (b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;
> 
> (c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
> 
> (d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
> 
> (e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;
> 
> (f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces.  Notice that the international law (_supra_ --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory."  The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.
> 
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner.    In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians _(who rejected participation in the Government Administration)_ have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, so? How does all this refute my post?

We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.

They were not immigrants. They were colonists.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't in the sense of a nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  What is your criteria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.
Click to expand...


You are ridiculous.  Of course the Jewish people meet all the criteria for being a "people" and have a common place of ancestry.  And the Jewish people have kept their unique culture alive for thousands of years -- both in and out of that common place of ancestry.  The argument that they somehow don't "count" is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.  

What people existed in Israel and Judea and Samaria before the invasions of the Romans and the Arabs?  Why the Jewish people, of course.  Those very same people who continue to speak the same language, and share the same history, and worship at the same holy places, and follow the same laws, and eat the same foods and tell the same stories and celebrate the same life events and holidays.  

It is silly in the extreme to argue that this truth is untrue.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't in the sense of a nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  What is your criteria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ridiculous.  Of course the Jewish people meet all the criteria for being a "people" and have a common place of ancestry.  And the Jewish people have kept their unique culture alive for thousands of years -- both in and out of that common place of ancestry.  The argument that they somehow don't "count" is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.
> 
> What people existed in Israel and Judea and Samaria before the invasions of the Romans and the Arabs?  Why the Jewish people, of course.  Those very same people who continue to speak the same language, and share the same history, and worship at the same holy places, and follow the same laws, and eat the same foods and tell the same stories and celebrate the same life events and holidays.
> 
> It is silly in the extreme to argue that this truth is untrue.
Click to expand...

Of course what I posted is still true.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Without the actual assistance of the UK _(Balfour Declaration)_, the Allied Powers decisions at San Remo, the publication of the Mandate _(setting the Immigration policy)_ and the Order in Council _(defining the territory and establishing both citizenship and nationality criteria)_, the UN Special Committee on Palestine _(UNSCOP that published the Recommendations)_, the UN General Assembly that adopted the recommendations and set in motion that "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the UN Palestine Commission UNPC _(the Successor Government to the Mandatory)_, --- the Jewish People would not have had the opportunity to accomplish what they did.  The absence of any one of these ingredients would have stalled the outcome.  So, no matter what you believe the Jewish intended or not, it could not have unfolded much differently than the way it did.  Even the hostility provided by the Arab Palestinians contributed to the outcome of raising a Jewish State by their constant and ever continuous violence that advanced the termination of the Mandate, as well as the unrest for which they were directly responsible for, AND the aggressor intervention by the Arab League _(external)_ forces which further demonstrated the need for an independent and sovereign state from which the Jewish Culture could defend itself --- as well as everything else, was a contributing factor.

Like some many thing in the universe, the absence of a single ingredient alters the outcome.

*(INCIDENTAL)*

While the items described thus far can be said to be necessary and sufficient conditions for the political outcome, one of the more convincing and persuasive developments that lead to the acceptance of Israel as the Independent and Sovereign Jewish State was the fact that both the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Irregular Forces) were hostile combat elements which had direct ties to the Special Commandos of the Waffen SS, German Abwehr, as well as the Wehrmacht; right on the heels of the WWII and the Holocaust.  This did not sit well with many Allied Contributors and the deNazification Programs.  Especially when they were again attempting to use armed aggression to achieve what they could not achieve by peaceful means.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, so? How does all this refute my post?
> 
> We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.
> 
> They were not immigrants. They were colonists.


*(COMMENT)*

You can frame it any way you want.  Your alternative view doesn't alter the political or historical reality.

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."  Political terminology changes gradually over time.  Your hidden _(unspoken)_ implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state."  WRONG... The state of Israel was a successor state from the dependency of the Mandatory and the UNPC Successor Government.  This _(in fact)_ was a solution to the Article 22 criteria for the provisional government to be able to "stand alone;" _(dependent one day - independent the next)_.

As I said before.  All these seemingly isolated issues are politically dovetailed together. 

*(FINALLY)*

The attempt to cast a suspicious and demonic shadow on the San Remo authorized immigration program, and portraying the Allied Powers _(to which the Ottoman/Turks renounced the title and right to in their Peace Treaty)_ as wicked and threatening is just a means of propaganda (A/RES/2/110) designed or likely to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, or acts of aggression.  While there are a number of causes as to why no peaceful settlement has been sought since 1948, the most significant of these is the belief that Jihad and Violence are the only solutions to  the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).  If they don't get what they want, they will keep on fighting.  More than 90% of the HoAP that claim to be fighting for their "Right-to-Return" have actually never lived in Israel...

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Without the actual assistance of the UK _(Balfour Declaration)_, the Allied Powers decisions at San Remo, the publication of the Mandate _(setting the Immigration policy)_ and the Order in Council _(defining the territory and establishing both citizenship and nationality criteria)_, the UN Special Committee on Palestine _(UNSCOP that published the Recommendations)_, the UN General Assembly that adopted the recommendations and set in motion that "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the UN Palestine Commission UNPC _(the Successor Government to the Mandatory)_, --- the Jewish People would not have had the opportunity to accomplish what they did.  The absence of any one of these ingredients would have stalled the outcome.  So, no matter what you believe the Jewish intended or not, it could not have unfolded much differently than the way it did.  Even the hostility provided by the Arab Palestinians contributed to the outcome of raising a Jewish State by their constant and ever continuous violence that advanced the termination of the Mandate, as well as the unrest for which they were directly responsible for, AND the aggressor intervention by the Arab League _(external)_ forces which further demonstrated the need for an independent and sovereign state from which the Jewish Culture could defend itself --- as well as everything else, was a contributing factor.
> 
> Like some many thing in the universe, the absence of a single ingredient alters the outcome.
> 
> *(INCIDENTAL)*
> 
> While the items described thus far can be said to be necessary and sufficient conditions for the political outcome, one of the more convincing and persuasive developments that lead to the acceptance of Israel as the Independent and Sovereign Jewish State was the fact that both the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Irregular Forces) were hostile combat elements which had direct ties to the Special Commandos of the Waffen SS, German Abwehr, as well as the Wehrmacht; right on the heels of the WWII and the Holocaust.  This did not sit well with many Allied Contributors and the deNazification Programs.  Especially when they were again attempting to use armed aggression to achieve what they could not achieve by peaceful means.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so? How does all this refute my post?
> 
> We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.
> 
> They were not immigrants. They were colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You can frame it any way you want.  Your alternative view doesn't alter the political or historical reality.
> 
> Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."  Political terminology changes gradually over time.  Your hidden _(unspoken)_ implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state."  WRONG... The state of Israel was a successor state from the dependency of the Mandatory and the UNPC Successor Government.  This _(in fact)_ was a solution to the Article 22 criteria for the provisional government to be able to "stand alone;" _(dependent one day - independent the next)_.
> 
> As I said before.  All these seemingly isolated issues are politically dovetailed together.
> 
> *(FINALLY)*
> 
> The attempt to cast a suspicious and demonic shadow on the San Remo authorized immigration program, and portraying the Allied Powers _(to which the Ottoman/Turks renounced the title and right to in their Peace Treaty)_ as wicked and threatening is just a means of propaganda (A/RES/2/110) designed or likely to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, or acts of aggression.  While there are a number of causes as to why no peaceful settlement has been sought since 1948, the most significant of these is the belief that Jihad and Violence are the only solutions to  the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).  If they don't get what they want, they will keep on fighting.  More than 90% of the HoAP that claim to be fighting for their "Right-to-Return" have actually never lived in Israel...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

*Holy smokescreen, Batman!*

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."​
Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.

So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yeah, you are quite today.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Your statement was right, but the inference was wrong.  You need to read the entire response I gave.    Including:  "Your hidden_(unspoken)_ implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... "



P F Tinmore said:


> So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.


*(COMMENT)*

•  2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.
•  Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).
•  Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
•  Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
•  March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you are quite today.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your statement was right, but the inference was wrong.  You need to read the entire response I gave.    Including:  "Your hidden_(unspoken)_ implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... "
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
Click to expand...





> •  2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.


Military control does not mean ownership.


> •  Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*


Appointed government does not mean ownership.


> •  Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).


Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.


> •  Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.


There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.


> •  March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.


The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.



> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.


Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept. 



> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are trying to question the Israeli "right of self-determination"...
> 
> 
> 
> There are several UN resolutions stating that the Palestinians have the right to self determination, however, I have never seen one that says the same thing about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> *  To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;  Article 1(2), UN Charter.
> 
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> *PART I*
> _*Article 1*_​
> 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
> 
> 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Self-determination is applied to everyone.  The International Law and the 1945 UN Charter, are in agreement:  "All peoples have the right of self-determination."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel, as a "Successor State" to the territory which was dependent _(for the international relations diplomatic and legalities)_ to the "Predecessor State" _(the appointed Mandatory: Britain)_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)*
> 
> *Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties*
> Done at Vienna on 23 August 1978
> 
> *Article 2*
> Use of terms​1.For the purposes of the present Convention:
> 
> (b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;
> 
> (c) “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
> 
> (d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
> 
> (e) “date of the succession of States” means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of States relates;
> 
> (f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you know, Israel was a "newly independent state" (declared 15 May 1948) when it was invaded by external forces.  Notice that the international law (_supra_ --- " f " ---) speaks about the "territory" and "dependent territory."  The territory to which the Mandate applied was a "dependent territory" --- dependent on the Mandatory for Government; which then transferred to from the British to the UNPC.
> 
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> What I find interesting is that the Arab Palestinians think they are unique in some manner.    In this case, it is about the implication where the Arab Palestinians _(who rejected participation in the Government Administration)_ have the unique right to self-determination; whereas the Jewish Immigrant establishing the Jewish National Home under the guidance of the Mandatory, and following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" do not have the same right.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so? How does all this refute my post?
> 
> We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.
> 
> They were not immigrants. They were colonists.
Click to expand...







 Very easy as it shows you have not looked outside the box, and have not realised that Israel is covered by a lot of UN resolutions and the UN charter.

 The Ottomans invited the Jews to migrate in the late 1800's, and then the LoN also invited them to migrate  and create Jewish NATIONal home in Palestine. The LoN then reduced the original grant with the Jews consent and gave 78% of Palestine to the arab muslims.
It was the publicly stated views of individuals if you look at the evidence, not the whole of the Zionist movement. Which is why the Jewish declaration has this as part of it


*WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.*

*WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.*




 What do the islamonazi declarations say, "KILL THE JEWS" and The land is ours because allah said so.

 They were immigrants to their own land and yes they colonised it, the parts that the arab muslims did not want because it was poor soil or hard to cultivate. That is what both invites stated, that the Jews colonise the land, not the arab muslims. And as Churchill said the arab muslims illegally migrated to Palestine because the British had no remit to control their immigration.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't in the sense of a nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  What is your criteria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are a multi racial and ethnic religious group without a common place of ancestry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ridiculous.  Of course the Jewish people meet all the criteria for being a "people" and have a common place of ancestry.  And the Jewish people have kept their unique culture alive for thousands of years -- both in and out of that common place of ancestry.  The argument that they somehow don't "count" is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.
> 
> What people existed in Israel and Judea and Samaria before the invasions of the Romans and the Arabs?  Why the Jewish people, of course.  Those very same people who continue to speak the same language, and share the same history, and worship at the same holy places, and follow the same laws, and eat the same foods and tell the same stories and celebrate the same life events and holidays.
> 
> It is silly in the extreme to argue that this truth is untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course what I posted is still true.
Click to expand...







 No it is a pack of islamonazi LIES and propaganda, which s all you have


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Without the actual assistance of the UK _(Balfour Declaration)_, the Allied Powers decisions at San Remo, the publication of the Mandate _(setting the Immigration policy)_ and the Order in Council _(defining the territory and establishing both citizenship and nationality criteria)_, the UN Special Committee on Palestine _(UNSCOP that published the Recommendations)_, the UN General Assembly that adopted the recommendations and set in motion that "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the UN Palestine Commission UNPC _(the Successor Government to the Mandatory)_, --- the Jewish People would not have had the opportunity to accomplish what they did.  The absence of any one of these ingredients would have stalled the outcome.  So, no matter what you believe the Jewish intended or not, it could not have unfolded much differently than the way it did.  Even the hostility provided by the Arab Palestinians contributed to the outcome of raising a Jewish State by their constant and ever continuous violence that advanced the termination of the Mandate, as well as the unrest for which they were directly responsible for, AND the aggressor intervention by the Arab League _(external)_ forces which further demonstrated the need for an independent and sovereign state from which the Jewish Culture could defend itself --- as well as everything else, was a contributing factor.
> 
> Like some many thing in the universe, the absence of a single ingredient alters the outcome.
> 
> *(INCIDENTAL)*
> 
> While the items described thus far can be said to be necessary and sufficient conditions for the political outcome, one of the more convincing and persuasive developments that lead to the acceptance of Israel as the Independent and Sovereign Jewish State was the fact that both the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Irregular Forces) were hostile combat elements which had direct ties to the Special Commandos of the Waffen SS, German Abwehr, as well as the Wehrmacht; right on the heels of the WWII and the Holocaust.  This did not sit well with many Allied Contributors and the deNazification Programs.  Especially when they were again attempting to use armed aggression to achieve what they could not achieve by peaceful means.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so? How does all this refute my post?
> 
> We hear a lot about Jewish immigration. Immigration is a misnomer - a lie if you will. The Zionists never had any intention of being a part of Palestine. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. They imported foreign settlers by the boatload to colonize the land and transform Palestine into an exclusive Jewish state. This was their publicly stated goal.
> 
> They were not immigrants. They were colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You can frame it any way you want.  Your alternative view doesn't alter the political or historical reality.
> 
> Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."  Political terminology changes gradually over time.  Your hidden _(unspoken)_ implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state."  WRONG... The state of Israel was a successor state from the dependency of the Mandatory and the UNPC Successor Government.  This _(in fact)_ was a solution to the Article 22 criteria for the provisional government to be able to "stand alone;" _(dependent one day - independent the next)_.
> 
> As I said before.  All these seemingly isolated issues are politically dovetailed together.
> 
> *(FINALLY)*
> 
> The attempt to cast a suspicious and demonic shadow on the San Remo authorized immigration program, and portraying the Allied Powers _(to which the Ottoman/Turks renounced the title and right to in their Peace Treaty)_ as wicked and threatening is just a means of propaganda (A/RES/2/110) designed or likely to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, or acts of aggression.  While there are a number of causes as to why no peaceful settlement has been sought since 1948, the most significant of these is the belief that Jihad and Violence are the only solutions to  the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).  If they don't get what they want, they will keep on fighting.  More than 90% of the HoAP that claim to be fighting for their "Right-to-Return" have actually never lived in Israel...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Holy smokescreen, Batman!*
> 
> Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."​
> Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.
> 
> So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.
Click to expand...






 That is right, now take the next step and see that Palestine was never a state, but the LoN mandate of Palestine had all the attributes of a state barring the government and infrastructure of a state. In 1948 the Jews proved they could govern themselves and institute the infrastructure needed to govern.

 The land was LoN after the surrender terms were finalised, and by signing the treaties the LoN took control of the land and split it into mandates. These were further split into nations to be assisted by the mandatories in setting up governments and a valid nation. The arab muslims of Palestine constantly showed they did not have the necessary attributes to ever build a nation which is why they demand that world does it for them.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you are quite today.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your statement was right, but the inference was wrong.  You need to read the entire response I gave.    Including:  "Your hidden_(unspoken)_ implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... "
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> •  2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> •  Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> •  Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> 
> 
> •  Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> 
> 
> •  March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...








 No they acquired it the same way Jordan, Syria and Iraq did, from the LoN mandate the land was part of.   You confuse yourself with mandate and mandatory


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> 
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.  

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

•  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

•  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE 
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

•  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense). ​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> 
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

OH nonsense!!!  

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. 

••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
•   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

*  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.​
Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.​
They use the blue line because Israel does not border Lebanon.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.​
> Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?
Click to expand...







 Israel and the Palestinian government, which would succeed the Palestinian Authority after 5 years. In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government. Until the Palestinians make the move towards free determination and elect a government they will achieve nothing but the deaths of thousands of innocents


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.​
> They use the blue line because Israel does not border Lebanon.
Click to expand...







It does if you look at the maps lodged with the UN. And there are no maps in the UN archives showing the borders of the nation of Palestine. But there are maps showing the borders of the Mandate of Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.) Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?) The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.) set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.​
> Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel and the Palestinian government, which would succeed the Palestinian Authority after 5 years. In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government. Until the Palestinians make the move towards free determination and elect a government they will achieve nothing but the deaths of thousands of innocents
Click to expand...

Palestinians refused to create a government.​
Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I can hardly believe you asked this...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> * The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

A border or frontier is (normally) negotiated by the parties in which the boundary separates the political entities. 

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Agreements, there is :

ARTICLE XVII --- Jurisdiction (Oslo II)

1. In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:

a. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and

b. powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.​5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.​
The dispute resolution aspect, for unreconcilable differences, are addressed in:

ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes (Oslo II)

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,




P F Tinmore said:


> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)


*(COMMENT)*

Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.

In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor. 
*(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
[/quote]
In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)


*(COMMENT)*

This is actually compound question. 

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:



Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties. 

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​


P F Tinmore said:


> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)


*(COMMENT)*

This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*


The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize. 

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, I guess that I should have clarified myself; since the entire discussion was on events of the 20th Century.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

A decade later, when did the Palestinians have new elections?  

One election does not make a working government. And the inability to actually coordinate another one is an indication that it cannot stand alone.

You can write as many Basic Laws as you wish and cite it as often as you want.  It is not representative of a working government if the government cannot follow them.

The 1988 State of Palestine is a failed state.

Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators ROBERT I. ROTBERG Chapter 1, p.3

 The state’s prime function is to provide that political good of security—to prevent cross-border invasions and infiltrations, and any loss of territory; to eliminate domestic threats to or attacks upon the national order and social structure; to prevent crime and any related dangers to domestic human security; and to enable citizens to resolve their disputes with the state and with their fellow inhabitants without recourse to arms or other forms of physical coercion.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, I guess that I should have clarified myself; since the entire discussion was on events of the 20th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A decade later, when did the Palestinians have new elections?
> 
> One election does not make a working government. And the inability to actually coordinate another one is an indication that it cannot stand alone.
> 
> You can write as many Basic Laws as you wish and cite it as often as you want.  It is not representative of a working government if the government cannot follow them.
> 
> The 1988 State of Palestine is a failed state.
> Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators ROBERT I. ROTBERG Chapter 1, p.3
> 
> The state’s prime function is to provide that political good of security—to prevent cross-border invasions and infiltrations, and any loss of territory; to eliminate domestic threats to or attacks upon the national order and social structure; to prevent crime and any related dangers to domestic human security; and to enable citizens to resolve their disputes with the state and with their fellow inhabitants without recourse to arms or other forms of physical coercion.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It's that darned illegal external interference. The Palestinians are trying to get those laws enforced but the criminal class is fighting them tooth and nail.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership.​
Wouldn't holding title and rights denote ownership. Perhaps I am not using the proper terminology.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
Click to expand...

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)


*(COMMENT)*

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​


P F Tinmore said:


> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)


*(COMMENT)*

This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.​
What treaty caused that to happen?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I can hardly believe you asked this...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> * The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A border or frontier is (normally) negotiated by the parties in which the boundary separates the political entities.
> 
> In the case of the Arab-Israeli Agreements, there is :
> 
> ARTICLE XVII --- Jurisdiction (Oslo II)
> 1. In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:
> 
> a. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and
> 
> b. powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.​5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.​The dispute resolution aspect, for unreconcilable differences, are addressed in:
> 
> ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes (Oslo II)
> Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
> 
> 1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
> 
> 3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Oslo was not a treaty. A treaty has not yet been agreed.

BTW, didn't that thing expire in 1999?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
Click to expand...

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)


*(COMMENT)*

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​


P F Tinmore said:


> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)


*(COMMENT)*

This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor. 
*(2) Annexation*: International Law: *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
[/quote]
In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​
What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
Click to expand...

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)


*(COMMENT)*

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​


P F Tinmore said:


> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)


*(COMMENT)*

This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."​
Mandate *for what?*

Isn't that the place with international borders and citizens?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
Click to expand...

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)


*(COMMENT)*

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​


P F Tinmore said:


> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)


*(COMMENT)*

This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.​
At what points did they enter Israel's defined territory?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.) Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?) The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.) set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)
Click to expand...






 So when Jordan annexed Jerusalem and the west bank and Syria annexed the Golan heights it wast illegal ?

 Yes it was as the arab league invaded starting in 1947

 No Palestinian territory just mandate of Palestine territory, so the arab league attacked and invaded the UN in effect

 No as the land was not claimed under any treaty until Israel declared independence under the UN rules

 Read the preceding line again  " everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians."


 The Palestinians had to make the claim for themselves and any claim from Egypt, Jordan or another arab league nation would be invalid. That is why the Palestinians never had a nation until 1988, they allowed outside influence to prevail.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.​
> Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel and the Palestinian government, which would succeed the Palestinian Authority after 5 years. In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government. Until the Palestinians make the move towards free determination and elect a government they will achieve nothing but the deaths of thousands of innocents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians refused to create a government.​
> Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.
Click to expand...





 That was the P.A. and it is still in existence today, it was never a fully formed government as it met outside of Palestine and its members were unable to enter Palestine


----------



## Phoenall

Correct that is the MANDATE OF Palestine not to be confused with the British mandate



 Once they crossed the borders of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE of course, as the LoN treaty from 1923 shows that to be land destined for the Jewish NATIONal home.   Are you having problems understanding what is written in the Jews favour


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is actually compound question.
> 
> The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
> View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.
> 
> Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
> View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.​
At what points did they enter Israel's defined territory?[/QUOTE]






 When they crossed the borders into the MANDATE OF PALESTINE of course. Or don't you think international law should work in the Jews favour


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, I guess that I should have clarified myself; since the entire discussion was on events of the 20th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A decade later, when did the Palestinians have new elections?
> 
> One election does not make a working government. And the inability to actually coordinate another one is an indication that it cannot stand alone.
> 
> You can write as many Basic Laws as you wish and cite it as often as you want.  It is not representative of a working government if the government cannot follow them.
> 
> The 1988 State of Palestine is a failed state.
> Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators ROBERT I. ROTBERG Chapter 1, p.3
> 
> The state’s prime function is to provide that political good of security—to prevent cross-border invasions and infiltrations, and any loss of territory; to eliminate domestic threats to or attacks upon the national order and social structure; to prevent crime and any related dangers to domestic human security; and to enable citizens to resolve their disputes with the state and with their fellow inhabitants without recourse to arms or other forms of physical coercion.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's that darned illegal external interference. The Palestinians are trying to get those laws enforced but the criminal class is fighting them tooth and nail.
Click to expand...







 And they are all called Palestinians aren't they, and they illegally migrated there for that simple reason.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What are the elements to that offense?



P F Tinmore said:


> It's that darned illegal external interference. The Palestinians are trying to get those laws enforced but the criminal class is fighting them tooth and nail.


*(COMMENT)*

•  Who committed this crime?

•  What specific criminal statute or binding prohibition are you referring to?  (Specifically)

•  Where did this crime occur?

•  When did this crime occur?

•  Why or intent of this illegal action?​I hear this allegation quite often by the pro-Palestinian Community.  But it is like pulling teeth to get them to answer any of the basic interrogatives that are applicable to some offense.

*(INCIDENTAL SIDEBAR)*

•  The word "external" is only used once in the UN Charter (Article 100) and it is not referring to interference.
•  The word "interference" is not used once in the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I must have wrote this a half dozen times.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.​
> 
> 
> 
> What treaty caused that to happen?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Palestine Order in Council, along with the Citizenship Orders were derivatives of Allied Powers have selected Mandatory for Palestine.

The Treaty of Lausanne Article 16. was the authority for the Allied Powers, the successor to the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to set the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned (signatories to the treaty).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you need to re-read it.



P F Tinmore said:


> Oslo was not a treaty. A treaty has not yet been agreed.
> 
> BTW, didn't that thing expire in 1999?


*(COMMENT)*

I believe that I said that the Oslo Accords were an agreement.  I think I said specifically that  "the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles")."  Yes, I believe I annotated it as a "Declaration of Principles."

There is no "EXPIRATION DATE" on the Oslo Accords.  Article cites a date to which the Agreement "enters into force;" but no expiration date.

The Oslo Accord 1993 Declaration of Principles (DOP) did cite:   

Article V: Transitional period and permanent status negotiations: 
1. The five-year transitional period will begin upon the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. ​
Yes, there was a "transitional period" cited in the DOP.  There is a "dispute" here which is subject to the "dispute resolution process."  

•  Israel relinquished administrative control of *Jericho* to the Palestinian Authority in 1994.
•  Israel made a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.​The Palestinians have not been satisfied with the hand-off and withdrawal, claiming these areas are still occupied.  The Palestinians claim a dispute over the completion of the Protocol on Withdrawal of Israeli Forces from the Gaza Strip and Jericho Area.

The Palestinian Authority has yet to initiate the process under Article XV Resolution of Disputes. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are trying to argue a point I did not make.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2359 hrs 14 May 1848:  The territory was under the *control* of the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Military control does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  We are not talking about ownership.  Your question was:  "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs."  One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region.  But Article 16 is very clear:  "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Transferred to the UNPC *(Successor Government).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appointed government does not mean ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership.  I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.
> 
> What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight 14/15 May 1948:  Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:
> 
> •  There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished.  In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states:  "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, *have been signed by either of them*, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."
> 
> •  See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
> First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.
> 
> •  The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.   In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, *modern jus ad bellum *(the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).​Note:  this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning 15 May 1948:  Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack.  Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan  become fluid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OH nonsense!!!
> UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries
> 
> A. The Arab State
> B. The Jewish State​Part III. City of Jerusalem​However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States.  The Israeli borders expanded.  The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> March/April 1949:  Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary.  However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way.  They both are respected the identically.  Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.
> Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)
> 
> ••  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as *armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> ••  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing *international boundaries* of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> •   Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.
> 
> *  The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue.  Needless to say that  Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."   The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem.  Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew ---  and Israeli forces advanced upon.  The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State.  However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership.​
> Wouldn't holding title and rights denote ownership. Perhaps I am not using the proper terminology.
Click to expand...







Or perhaps you are confusing the issue because you don't understand that the Jews are supported by international laws as well as the arab muslims. In this case the LoN Mandate of Palestine which became International law says that the 22% of Palestine delineated as the Jewish NATIONal home became Jewish owned land. And as the link you provided shows the arab muslims have no claim to any of that land.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This thought gets more embellished the more I hear it repeated.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Annexation[/B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : International Law: *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty]*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory*.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*(REFERENCE)
*
*Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS*
*ARTICLE 47
*
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​*(COMMENT)
*
For the ump-teenth time:  Israel used the "Right of Self-determination" (Chapter I, Article 1(2), UN Charter) and the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" to declare the State of Israel. 

Well, actually, there is no UN Prohibition by Charter on the "Annexation" of territory under any given situation.  There are several references to "Acts of Aggression" _(starting a war)_, but no true limitation on annexation.

Now I've heard any number of pro-Palestinians cite Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as an authority.  And it is true, that the GCIV does have a proscription.  But the proscription is to prevent the Occupier from denying the "protected persons" some right _(as in the title:  Inviolability of Rights)_.  HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.   In 1967, the injured parties were Egypt and Jordan.  Both injuries were resolved by Peace Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is actually compound question.
> 
> The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
> View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.
> 
> Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
> View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.​
What treaty caused that to happen?

Link?[/QUOTE]






 NONE it was just assumed that the UN partition plan would work and that the arab muslims would take up the land and comply with the UN requests. Even though the partition plan went against International law of 1923, which the UN realised in 1949 and so altered the charter to reflect this. The UN should have evicted Egypt and Jordan from the land they occupied illegally and told the arab muslims to abide by international law or face the full might of the UN multi national armed forces


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I can hardly believe you asked this...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> * The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
> unilateral acts.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A border or frontier is (normally) negotiated by the parties in which the boundary separates the political entities.
> 
> In the case of the Arab-Israeli Agreements, there is :
> 
> ARTICLE XVII --- Jurisdiction (Oslo II)
> 1. In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:
> 
> a. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and
> 
> b. powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.​5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.​The dispute resolution aspect, for unreconcilable differences, are addressed in:
> 
> ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes (Oslo II)
> Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
> 
> 1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
> 
> 3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oslo was not a treaty. A treaty has not yet been agreed.
> 
> BTW, didn't that thing expire in 1999?
Click to expand...






 Parts of it where and so they became legally binding, if Oslo never existed then the Palestinians have no legal claim to the west bank and gaza.

Not according to the Palestinians that use it every day to try and force the world into attacking Israel and wiping out the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is actually compound question.
> 
> The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
> View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.
> 
> Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
> View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
*(2) Annexation*: International Law: *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
[/quote]
In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​
What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory.[/QUOTE]






 The UN charter and the LoN mandate of Palestine

 Apparently not as Egypt, Jordan and Syria were allowed to get away with it. It is only illegal when the Jews do it using international laws as the standard.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is actually compound question.
> 
> The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
> View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.
> 
> Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
> View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."​
Mandate *for what?*

Isn't that the place with international borders and citizens?[/QUOTE]





 No it is the place that was set aside for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Jewish NATIONal home. Until 1948 only the Hashemite kingdom had been claimed under the mandate rules, and then the Jews claimed the land for the Jewish NATIONal home. Palestine was the name given to the area by the Romans in 70 C.E. and stolen by the arab muslim illegal immigrants in 1964.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is actually compound question.
> 
> The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
> View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.
> 
> Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
> View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

*Part II. - Boundaries*
*A. THE ARAB STATE*
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

*B. THE JEWISH STATE*
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​[/QUOTE]
Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.​
At what points did they enter Israel's defined territory?[/QUOTE]





 When they crossed the borders delineated as the Jewish NATIONal home of course, which includes gaza, west bank and all of Jerusalem.    Or do you think that the Jews should not be covered by any international laws ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This thought gets more embellished the more I hear it repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Annexation[/B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : International Law: *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty]*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory*.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> *
> *Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS*
> *ARTICLE 47
> *
> Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​*(COMMENT)
> *
> For the ump-teenth time:  Israel used the "Right of Self-determination" (Chapter I, Article 1(2), UN Charter) and the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" to declare the State of Israel.
> 
> Well, actually, there is no UN Prohibition by Charter on the "Annexation" of territory under any given situation.  There are several references to "Acts of Aggression" _(starting a war)_, but no true limitation on annexation.
> 
> Now I've heard any number of pro-Palestinians cite Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as an authority.  And it is true, that the GCIV does have a proscription.  But the proscription is to prevent the Occupier from denying the "protected persons" some right _(as in the title:  Inviolability of Rights)_.  HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.   In 1967, the injured parties were Egypt and Jordan.  Both injuries were resolved by Peace Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You need to read your own post. You are contradicting yourself.

Nice duck though.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is actually compound question.
> 
> The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
> View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.
> 
> Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
> View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:
> 
> *Part II. - Boundaries*
> *A. THE ARAB STATE*
> The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
> .....
> The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.
> 
> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
> .....
> It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> *C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.​
At what points did they enter Israel's defined territory?[/QUOTE]





When they crossed the borders delineated as the Jewish NATIONal home of course, which includes gaza, west bank and all of Jerusalem.    Or do you think that the Jews should not be covered by any international laws ?[/QUOTE]
Nobody gave that land to the Jews. They were only allowed to live in Palestine as Palestinian citizens.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh come now, I answered the questions directly, with no subterfuge.



P F Tinmore said:


> You need to read your own post. You are contradicting yourself.
> 
> Nice duck though.


*(COMMENT)*

I re-read the Posting #828, and do not find any contradiction.   If you are going to accuse me of something, at least have the courtesy of being a little more specific.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This thought gets more embellished the more I hear it repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Annexation[/B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : International Law: *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty]*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory*.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> *
> *Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS*
> *ARTICLE 47
> *
> Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​*(COMMENT)
> *
> For the ump-teenth time:  Israel used the "Right of Self-determination" (Chapter I, Article 1(2), UN Charter) and the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" to declare the State of Israel.
> 
> Well, actually, there is no UN Prohibition by Charter on the "Annexation" of territory under any given situation.  There are several references to "Acts of Aggression" _(starting a war)_, but no true limitation on annexation.
> 
> Now I've heard any number of pro-Palestinians cite Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as an authority.  And it is true, that the GCIV does have a proscription.  But the proscription is to prevent the Occupier from denying the "protected persons" some right _(as in the title:  Inviolability of Rights)_.  HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.   In 1967, the injured parties were Egypt and Jordan.  Both injuries were resolved by Peace Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.  
-----------------------
These rules underline the basic concern of the law of occupation, which
is to maintain the status quo ante (i.e. as it was before) in the occupied
territory as far as is practically possible. This makes sense.* The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.* This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered
temporary by international law.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This thought gets more embellished the more I hear it repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Annexation[/B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : International Law: *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty]*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory*.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> *
> *Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS*
> *ARTICLE 47
> *
> Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​*(COMMENT)
> *
> For the ump-teenth time:  Israel used the "Right of Self-determination" (Chapter I, Article 1(2), UN Charter) and the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" to declare the State of Israel.
> 
> Well, actually, there is no UN Prohibition by Charter on the "Annexation" of territory under any given situation.  There are several references to "Acts of Aggression" _(starting a war)_, but no true limitation on annexation.
> 
> Now I've heard any number of pro-Palestinians cite Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as an authority.  And it is true, that the GCIV does have a proscription.  But the proscription is to prevent the Occupier from denying the "protected persons" some right _(as in the title:  Inviolability of Rights)_.  HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.   In 1967, the injured parties were Egypt and Jordan.  Both injuries were resolved by Peace Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.
-----------------------
These rules underline the basic concern of the law of occupation, which is to maintain the status quo ante (i.e. as it was before) in the occupied territory as far as is practically possible. This makes sense.* The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.* This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.
---------------------------
BTW, this is the question you ducked.

What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not exactly true.  There are other considerations involved.  The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
> *(2) Annexation*:  International Law:  *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950.  In 1980, Israel made the critical decision.  Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem.  This issue is unresolved at the international level.  Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is actually compound question.
> 
> The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel.  That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution.  The last update was in 2015:
> View attachment 74176​Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.
> 
> Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.  Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel.  The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities.  The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control.  The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty.  However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles").  However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.
> 
> Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely inaccurate.  The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November *has been implemented.*
> View attachment 74182​The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the *territory under Mandate* for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."  Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.
> 
> Hummm...  I did not change the name or the faith in the wording.  I think my phrasing was quite accurate.  If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:
> 
> *Part II. - Boundaries*
> *A. THE ARAB STATE*
> The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
> .....
> The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.
> 
> *B. THE JEWISH STATE*
> The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
> .....
> It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.
> 
> *C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM*​I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion.  I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake.  But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.​
> At what points did they enter Israel's defined territory?
Click to expand...






When they crossed the borders delineated as the Jewish NATIONal home of course, which includes gaza, west bank and all of Jerusalem.    Or do you think that the Jews should not be covered by any international laws ?[/QUOTE]
Nobody gave that land to the Jews. They were only allowed to live in Palestine as Palestinian citizens.[/QUOTE]






 Not according to the LoN Mandate of Palestine that clearly states the land was granted to the Jews for their NATIONal home. The same mandate that granted the land for the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. So is Jordan also invalid as no one gave them the land. The same applies to Syria, Iraq, Iran et al as the land was LoN, gained when the allied powers defeated the Ottomans in 1917.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This thought gets more embellished the more I hear it repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Annexation[/B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : International Law: *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty]*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory*.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> *
> *Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS*
> *ARTICLE 47
> *
> Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​*(COMMENT)
> *
> For the ump-teenth time:  Israel used the "Right of Self-determination" (Chapter I, Article 1(2), UN Charter) and the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" to declare the State of Israel.
> 
> Well, actually, there is no UN Prohibition by Charter on the "Annexation" of territory under any given situation.  There are several references to "Acts of Aggression" _(starting a war)_, but no true limitation on annexation.
> 
> Now I've heard any number of pro-Palestinians cite Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as an authority.  And it is true, that the GCIV does have a proscription.  But the proscription is to prevent the Occupier from denying the "protected persons" some right _(as in the title:  Inviolability of Rights)_.  HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.   In 1967, the injured parties were Egypt and Jordan.  Both injuries were resolved by Peace Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.
> -----------------------
> These rules underline the basic concern of the law of occupation, which
> is to maintain the status quo ante (i.e. as it was before) in the occupied
> territory as far as is practically possible. This makes sense.* The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.* This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered
> temporary by international law.
Click to expand...






 LINK as to when this came an International law, you might be surprised at the findings ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This thought gets more embellished the more I hear it repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Annexation[/B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : International Law: *Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty]*
> Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory*.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(REFERENCE)
> *
> *Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS*
> *ARTICLE 47
> *
> Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​*(COMMENT)
> *
> For the ump-teenth time:  Israel used the "Right of Self-determination" (Chapter I, Article 1(2), UN Charter) and the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" to declare the State of Israel.
> 
> Well, actually, there is no UN Prohibition by Charter on the "Annexation" of territory under any given situation.  There are several references to "Acts of Aggression" _(starting a war)_, but no true limitation on annexation.
> 
> Now I've heard any number of pro-Palestinians cite Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as an authority.  And it is true, that the GCIV does have a proscription.  But the proscription is to prevent the Occupier from denying the "protected persons" some right _(as in the title:  Inviolability of Rights)_.  HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.   In 1967, the injured parties were Egypt and Jordan.  Both injuries were resolved by Peace Treaty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom _(not the protected people)_.
> -----------------------
> These rules underline the basic concern of the law of occupation, which is to maintain the status quo ante (i.e. as it was before) in the occupied territory as far as is practically possible. This makes sense.* The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.* This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.
> ---------------------------
> BTW, this is the question you ducked.
> 
> What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
Click to expand...






 No he gave the answer, which you ducked because it means International law was once again on the side of the Jews


----------



## RoccoR

"P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is circular whining.  You ask and ask and ask this question, and still you fail to read the answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, this is the question you ducked.
> 
> What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?


*(COMMENT and the Dogged Answer)*

The question was answer twice.  Once in *Posting # 810,* and once in* Posting # 828*. 

The means was:
•  Self-Determination as previously posted; through both the:

•  Declarative Process
•  Constitutive Process​•  Following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence"
•  Success in the Military Defense of the Nation against Arab League Aggressors.​All of these "means" have been discussed numerous times, by multiple people,

*(UNDERSTANDING)*

But just mouthing the words means nothing if you don't understand these phrases of description.

In any "determinist" view _(as in self-determination - wherein the inhabitants determine their own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government)_ has an element in common:  "A philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, *there exist conditions that could cause no other event*.   The "Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel," is the resulting outcome in the alignment of this set of conditions.   "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action." (_*Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*_)  The history of the State of Israel - with the Faisal-Wiesman Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Armistice of Mudros, the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, the Palestine Order in Council, Mandate for Palestine, the Arab Riots, the Palestinian Black Hand, the recommendations of the UNSCOP, and the adoption of UN Resolution 181(II), and the Civil War between the Arab and Jewish Peoples, set that polarization of the two peoples, serially coming together to set those conditions in which the only possible outcome is what we have today.  It could have been no other than a Jewish State of Israel; there being no other possible outcome.  When we use these words to describe a "right" of the people, this right of self-determination to set their own destiny --- what we are saying is that the events that were so necessary before a certain outcome could happen to people to forge a particular future, has come together.

*(REMEMBER)*

This is what was meant when the Allied Powers wrote Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty and the phrase:  "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22.  How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British? 

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

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

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


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22.  How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."









 And as your link that you rely on states the article does not apply in this case.  Just admit that you have it wrong


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> "P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is circular whining.  You ask and ask and ask this question, and still you fail to read the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this is the question you ducked.
> 
> What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT and the Dogged Answer)*
> 
> The question was answer twice.  Once in *Posting # 810,* and once in* Posting # 828*.
> 
> The means was:
> •  Self-Determination as previously posted; through both the:
> 
> •  Declarative Process
> •  Constitutive Process​•  Following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence"
> •  Success in the Military Defense of the Nation against Arab League Aggressors.​All of these "means" have been discussed numerous times, by multiple people,
> 
> *(UNDERSTANDING)*
> 
> But just mouthing the words means nothing if you don't understand these phrases of description.
> 
> In any "determinist" view _(as in self-determination - wherein the inhabitants determine their own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government)_ has an element in common:  "A philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, *there exist conditions that could cause no other event*.   The "Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel," is the resulting outcome in the alignment of this set of conditions.   "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action." (_*Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*_)  The history of the State of Israel - with the Faisal-Wiesman Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Armistice of Mudros, the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, the Palestine Order in Council, Mandate for Palestine, the Arab Riots, the Palestinian Black Hand, the recommendations of the UNSCOP, and the adoption of UN Resolution 181(II), and the Civil War between the Arab and Jewish Peoples, set that polarization of the two peoples, serially coming together to set those conditions in which the only possible outcome is what we have today.  It could have been no other than a Jewish State of Israel; there being no other possible outcome.  When we use these words to describe a "right" of the people, this right of self-determination to set their own destiny --- what we are saying is that the events that were so necessary before a certain outcome could happen to people to forge a particular future, has come together.
> 
> *(REMEMBER)*
> 
> This is what was meant when the Allied Powers wrote Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty and the phrase:  "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

From your link.

determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status​
The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, it is a decent argument, if only it was accurate.   The common mistake here is that the "parties concerned" for the purposes of the Treaty of Lausanne where the individual signatories to the Treaty on the part of the Allied Powers.

Second:  The primary obligations of the Mandatory Power were clearly defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH), as laid down in the Mandate Preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
*--------------------------------- AND   ---------------------------------*
*From the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine*​“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.​The Third most common error is binary in nature:

•  The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT directly obligate or tie the Allied Powers and signatories to the League of Nations (LoN) Covenant or any Covenant requirement.  The Covenant is not mentioned once in the Treaty.
• There is no direct tie or obligation that existed between Treaty of Lausanne and the Mandate for Palestine.  The territory for which the Mandate of Palestine applied is not mentioned once in the Treaty of Lausanne.​The Fourth misunderstanding between on the subject matter is that Article 2 of the Mandate assigned equal weight and importance to three obligations pertaining to the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine:"

•   The creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;
•   The creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions;
•   The safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​The Fifth and final observation is that the LoN Covenant, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Treaty of Lausanne give not weight or importance to the "right of self-determination."  There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that obligates the Council of the LoN, the Allied Powers in general, or the Mandatory specifically to the establishment of an Arab State.
Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant

•  Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
•  Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.
•  Article 22(3)  The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant.  The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed.  It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
•  Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities.  Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
•  Article 22(5)  Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
•  Article 22(6)  Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
•  Article 22(7)  Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
•  Article 22(8)  Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
•  Article 22(9)  Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.​


montelatici said:


> The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22.  How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."


*(COMMENT)*

There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that directly obligates the Council, the Allied Powers, the LoNPC or the Mandatory to a commitment to any Arab Community; let alone an Arab Palestinian community.  There is no specific instruction as to the allocation or territorial requirement for any Arab Political Subdivision.  In point of fact, Article 22(3) could equally apply to the Jewish Immigrant community, as it is assumed that it might apply to an unidentified Arab Community.  Nothing in Article 22 is specifically or uniquely applicable to only an Arab Community.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well I just gave an extensive answer to "montelatici," on a subject very close to this.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination.  You have it.  You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.  

The citizenship law of 1925 (as amended) has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty or independence.  In fact the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Law was covering citizens of the Mandate Government and never actually applied to any sovereignty outside the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Palestinians were never mentioned or specifically addressed in the Treaty of Lausanne.  The treaty allied to all the Mandates of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well I just gave an extensive answer to "montelatici," on a subject very close to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination.  You have it.  You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.
> 
> The citizenship law of 1925 (as amended) has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty or independence.  In fact the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Law was covering citizens of the Mandate Government and never actually applied to any sovereignty outside the territory to which the Mandate applied.
> 
> Palestinians were never mentioned or specifically addressed in the Treaty of Lausanne.  The treaty allied to all the Mandates of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination. You have it. You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.​
Indeed, and preventing people from exercising their right to self determination usually requires some form of military aggression which is illegal. That would be illegal external interference.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

In the role of a Government, the lowest common denomination, in the positive direction, to the "right of self-determination" is (=) freedom.  And this is the hard part to understand.  Throughout history, there have been many many cultures and various populations that supported Totalitarian Regimes, Absolute monarchy  _(a government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution or legally organized opposition)_, Authoritarian _(a government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives)_, governments administered by a religious leadership, government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power etc, etc,  The people, of these various types of government, have the right of self-determination; but, by the same token those governments have the right to defend against the exercise of that right of self-determination which can be viewed as treason and insurrection.  In fact, there are some _coup d'état _that only succeeded in the replacement of one totalitarian regime with something even worse.  

When the ancient Greeks invented a system of society called democracy to protect their freedom, that was a form of self-determination.  When the Bolsheviks murdered the Royal Family in Czarist Russia, that was a form of self-determination.  When the citizens of Germany replaced the Weimar Republic with the NAZI --- that too was an example of self-determination.  The exercise of self-determination may lead to the loss of the right of self-determination, as in these examples.  The unrestrained "right to self-determination" is to order its own demise; you have to order the death to the freedom you love.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination.  You have it.  You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and preventing people from exercising their right to self determination usually requires some form of military aggression which is illegal. That would be illegal external interference.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

When the cure is worse than the disease, then the exercise is fatal _(in political terms, the failed state emerges)_.  Now some people say that, none the less, the people have that right of self-determination (the view held by the pro-Palestinian faction).  And the opposing view to that is, there is no absolute right to commit suicide.  The best example of this in modern times is DAESH (ISIS), is an example of the culture promoting a radical Islamic Caliphate _(a single dictatorship under a one-world government)_.  And once the radicalist exercise their right to self-determination, the resultant outcome is a government that no longer tolerates self-determination.  You've heard of this before; it is called political suicide.

The political concept of self-determination initially sounds patriotic and progressive; but it can prove so very deadly.  The 20th Century was an historic period in which so many disasters befell the world.

•  61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 
•  35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese 
•  20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 
•  5,964,000 Murdered: Japanese Co-prospearity Sphere 
•  2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, it is a decent argument, if only it was accurate.   The common mistake here is that the "parties concerned" for the purposes of the Treaty of Lausanne where the individual signatories to the Treaty on the part of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Second:  The primary obligations of the Mandatory Power were clearly defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:
> 
> “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH), as laid down in the Mandate Preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
> *--------------------------------- AND   ---------------------------------*
> *From the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine*​“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.​The Third most common error is binary in nature:
> 
> •  The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT directly obligate or tie the Allied Powers and signatories to the League of Nations (LoN) Covenant or any Covenant requirement.  The Covenant is not mentioned once in the Treaty.
> • There is no direct tie or obligation that existed between Treaty of Lausanne and the Mandate for Palestine.  The territory for which the Mandate of Palestine applied is not mentioned once in the Treaty of Lausanne.​The Fourth misunderstanding between on the subject matter is that Article 2 of the Mandate assigned equal weight and importance to three obligations pertaining to the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine:"
> 
> •   The creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;
> •   The creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions;
> •   The safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​The Fifth and final observation is that the LoN Covenant, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Treaty of Lausanne give not weight or importance to the "right of self-determination."  There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that obligates the Council of the LoN, the Allied Powers in general, or the Mandatory specifically to the establishment of an Arab State.
> Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant
> 
> •  Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
> •  Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.
> •  Article 22(3)  The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant.  The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed.  It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
> •  Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities.  Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
> •  Article 22(5)  Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
> •  Article 22(6)  Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
> •  Article 22(7)  Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
> •  Article 22(8)  Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> •  Article 22(9)  Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22.  How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that directly obligates the Council, the Allied Powers, the LoNPC or the Mandatory to a commitment to any Arab Community; let alone an Arab Palestinian community.  There is no specific instruction as to the allocation or territorial requirement for any Arab Political Subdivision.  In point of fact, Article 22(3) could equally apply to the Jewish Immigrant community, as it is assumed that it might apply to an unidentified Arab Community.  Nothing in Article 22 is specifically or uniquely applicable to only an Arab Community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...


The commitment was to the inhabitants, and when the LON Covenant was signed 95% of the people in Palestine were Muslims and Christians.  Transferring Europeans to Palestine subsequently, certainly did not safeguard the civil rights of said inhabitants.  It did quite the opposite.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is circular whining.  You ask and ask and ask this question, and still you fail to read the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this is the question you ducked.
> 
> What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT and the Dogged Answer)*
> 
> The question was answer twice.  Once in *Posting # 810,* and once in* Posting # 828*.
> 
> The means was:
> •  Self-Determination as previously posted; through both the:
> 
> •  Declarative Process
> •  Constitutive Process​•  Following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence"
> •  Success in the Military Defense of the Nation against Arab League Aggressors.​All of these "means" have been discussed numerous times, by multiple people,
> 
> *(UNDERSTANDING)*
> 
> But just mouthing the words means nothing if you don't understand these phrases of description.
> 
> In any "determinist" view _(as in self-determination - wherein the inhabitants determine their own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government)_ has an element in common:  "A philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, *there exist conditions that could cause no other event*.   The "Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel," is the resulting outcome in the alignment of this set of conditions.   "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action." (_*Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*_)  The history of the State of Israel - with the Faisal-Wiesman Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Armistice of Mudros, the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, the Palestine Order in Council, Mandate for Palestine, the Arab Riots, the Palestinian Black Hand, the recommendations of the UNSCOP, and the adoption of UN Resolution 181(II), and the Civil War between the Arab and Jewish Peoples, set that polarization of the two peoples, serially coming together to set those conditions in which the only possible outcome is what we have today.  It could have been no other than a Jewish State of Israel; there being no other possible outcome.  When we use these words to describe a "right" of the people, this right of self-determination to set their own destiny --- what we are saying is that the events that were so necessary before a certain outcome could happen to people to forge a particular future, has come together.
> 
> *(REMEMBER)*
> 
> This is what was meant when the Allied Powers wrote Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty and the phrase:  "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link.
> 
> determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status​
> The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.
Click to expand...








 Cherry picking little pieces does not prove your POV, it just shows that you are grasping at straws because you are losing the argument.


 As you have been shown hundreds of times in the past Palestine was never mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne so how can it say what you claim. The citizenship order was to give the Jews the ability to become Palestinian citizens, and it did not apply to any arab muslim illegal immigrants.   

WRONG AGAIN as enforcing the rule of law on them cant be a violation of their right to self determination, and at that period in time there was no such thing as a right to self determination.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is circular whining.  You ask and ask and ask this question, and still you fail to read the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, this is the question you ducked.
> 
> What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT and the Dogged Answer)*
> 
> The question was answer twice.  Once in *Posting # 810,* and once in* Posting # 828*.
> 
> The means was:
> •  Self-Determination as previously posted; through both the:
> 
> •  Declarative Process
> •  Constitutive Process​•  Following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence"
> •  Success in the Military Defense of the Nation against Arab League Aggressors.​All of these "means" have been discussed numerous times, by multiple people,
> 
> *(UNDERSTANDING)*
> 
> But just mouthing the words means nothing if you don't understand these phrases of description.
> 
> In any "determinist" view _(as in self-determination - wherein the inhabitants determine their own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government)_ has an element in common:  "A philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, *there exist conditions that could cause no other event*.   The "Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel," is the resulting outcome in the alignment of this set of conditions.   "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action." (_*Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*_)  The history of the State of Israel - with the Faisal-Wiesman Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Armistice of Mudros, the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, the Palestine Order in Council, Mandate for Palestine, the Arab Riots, the Palestinian Black Hand, the recommendations of the UNSCOP, and the adoption of UN Resolution 181(II), and the Civil War between the Arab and Jewish Peoples, set that polarization of the two peoples, serially coming together to set those conditions in which the only possible outcome is what we have today.  It could have been no other than a Jewish State of Israel; there being no other possible outcome.  When we use these words to describe a "right" of the people, this right of self-determination to set their own destiny --- what we are saying is that the events that were so necessary before a certain outcome could happen to people to forge a particular future, has come together.
> 
> *(REMEMBER)*
> 
> This is what was meant when the Allied Powers wrote Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty and the phrase:  "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From your link.
> 
> determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status​
> The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.
Click to expand...








 Cherry picking little pieces does not prove your POV, it just shows that you are grasping at straws because you are losing the argument.


 As you have been shown hundreds of times in the past Palestine was never mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne so how can it say what you claim. The citizenship order was to give the Jews the ability to become Palestinian citizens, and it did not apply to any arab muslim illegal immigrants.   

WRONG AGAIN as enforcing the rule of law on them cant be a violation of their right to self determination, and at that period in time there was no such thing as a right to self determination.   

 SO STOP TRYING TO USE INTERNATIONAL LAWS RETROSPECTIVELY UNLESS YOU WANT THEM TO BE USED AGAINST YOU


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well I just gave an extensive answer to "montelatici," on a subject very close to this.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination.  You have it.  You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.
> 
> The citizenship law of 1925 (as amended) has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty or independence.  In fact the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Law was covering citizens of the Mandate Government and never actually applied to any sovereignty outside the territory to which the Mandate applied.
> 
> Palestinians were never mentioned or specifically addressed in the Treaty of Lausanne.  The treaty allied to all the Mandates of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination. You have it. You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.​
> Indeed, and preventing people from exercising their right to self determination usually requires some form of military aggression which is illegal. That would be illegal external interference.
Click to expand...








 Cant you read English, are you that stupid that you don't understand what is being said.

 YOU CANT VIOLATE A PERSONS RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION, NO EVEN BY FORCE.

 It is that simple, and you are trying to make it as hard as possible when you allow your Jew hatred to cloud your thought process. How can military aggression from thinking about wanting a drink of water ?    That is self determination, as is firing illegal weapons that have been called war crimes.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, it is a decent argument, if only it was accurate.   The common mistake here is that the "parties concerned" for the purposes of the Treaty of Lausanne where the individual signatories to the Treaty on the part of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Second:  The primary obligations of the Mandatory Power were clearly defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:
> 
> “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH), as laid down in the Mandate Preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
> *--------------------------------- AND   ---------------------------------*
> *From the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine*​“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.​The Third most common error is binary in nature:
> 
> •  The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT directly obligate or tie the Allied Powers and signatories to the League of Nations (LoN) Covenant or any Covenant requirement.  The Covenant is not mentioned once in the Treaty.
> • There is no direct tie or obligation that existed between Treaty of Lausanne and the Mandate for Palestine.  The territory for which the Mandate of Palestine applied is not mentioned once in the Treaty of Lausanne.​The Fourth misunderstanding between on the subject matter is that Article 2 of the Mandate assigned equal weight and importance to three obligations pertaining to the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine:"
> 
> •   The creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;
> •   The creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions;
> •   The safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.​The Fifth and final observation is that the LoN Covenant, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Treaty of Lausanne give not weight or importance to the "right of self-determination."  There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that obligates the Council of the LoN, the Allied Powers in general, or the Mandatory specifically to the establishment of an Arab State.
> Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant
> 
> •  Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
> •  Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.
> •  Article 22(3)  The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant.  The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed.  It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
> •  Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities.  Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
> •  Article 22(5)  Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
> •  Article 22(6)  Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
> •  Article 22(7)  Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
> •  Article 22(8)  Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> •  Article 22(9)  Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22.  How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
> 
> The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
> 
> Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that directly obligates the Council, the Allied Powers, the LoNPC or the Mandatory to a commitment to any Arab Community; let alone an Arab Palestinian community.  There is no specific instruction as to the allocation or territorial requirement for any Arab Political Subdivision.  In point of fact, Article 22(3) could equally apply to the Jewish Immigrant community, as it is assumed that it might apply to an unidentified Arab Community.  Nothing in Article 22 is specifically or uniquely applicable to only an Arab Community.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The commitment was to the inhabitants, and when the LON Covenant was signed 95% of the people in Palestine were Muslims and Christians.  Transferring Europeans to Palestine subsequently, certainly did not safeguard the civil rights of said inhabitants.  It did quite the opposite.
Click to expand...







 What civil rights did it not safeguard ?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

It does not matter if 95% of the people in Palestine, were Muslims and Christians. 

Q:  To whom did the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic enter into the *Armistice of Mudros, *(Oct. 30, 1918)?

A:  The pact was signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).​Q:  To whom did the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic enter into the *Treaty of Sèvres, *(Aug. 10, 1920), a post-World War I pact?  

A:  The treaty was between the victorious Allied powers and representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey?​Q:  To whom did the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic enter into the *Treaty of Lausanne* with?

A:  The Allied Powers.​
Under Article 21:  Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.  This included the Treaty of Peace with Turkey signed at Lausanne as an instrument to maintain peace.



montelatici said:


> The commitment was to the inhabitants, and when the LON Covenant was signed 95% of the people in Palestine were Muslims and Christians.  Transferring Europeans to Palestine subsequently, certainly did not safeguard the civil rights of said inhabitants.  It did quite the opposite.


*(COMMENT)*

Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?

It should be noted that "Transferring Europeans to Palestine" was NEVER an objective to any Armistice, Treaty or Mandate.  The LoN objective was to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions to  encourage those Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The LoN Covenant is an agreement between the parties and not between any Arab Inhabitants in the Regional Area covered under the Syke-Picot Agreement.  There was not one single Arab Power mentioned in the LoN Covenant or one single Arab signatory to the Covenant.

*(QUESTIONs)*

•  In 1922 _(plus or minus a decade)_, what were the international "civil rights" of the Arab inhabitants understood by the Allied Power? 

•  Where are the "Civil Rights" of that era codified?

•  What rights of the early 20th Century Arab Palestinian, were protected in the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?

•  Where did the early 20th Century Arab Palestinian acquire any territorial sovereignty or independence?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

"Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"

In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:

*"ARTICLE 22.*
_To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
_
Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.

Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.

_"__The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
_
In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et a;,

Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant.  There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers.  In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement.  In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine.   The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.  The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.



montelatici said:


> "Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"
> 
> In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." _


*(COMMENT)*

The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).

•   A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.​
•  A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948  First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.  The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​
•  This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.  Article 22(2)



montelatici said:


> Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.



*(COMMENT)*

It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region.  What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."

"Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community."  Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."

Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."   The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​


montelatici said:


> Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> _"__The Council of the League of Nations:
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
> _
> In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power.  A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.

To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.

Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine.  It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> "Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"
> 
> In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> _
> Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.
> 
> Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> _"__The Council of the League of Nations:
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
> _
> In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.








 The answer is in your cut and paste were it says


_"__The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*,* to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire*, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et a;,
> 
> Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant.  There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers.  In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement.  In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine.   The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.  The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"
> 
> In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." _
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).
> 
> •   A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.​
> •  A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948  First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.  The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​
> •  This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.  Article 22(2)
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region.  What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."
> 
> "Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community."  Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."
> 
> Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."   The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> _"__The Council of the League of Nations:
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
> _
> In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power.  A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.
> 
> To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.
> 
> Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine.  It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.​
The Palestinians declined to be recognized as an inferior group.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et a;,
> 
> Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant.  There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers.  In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement.  In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine.   The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.  The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"
> 
> In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." _
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).
> 
> •   A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.​
> •  A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948  First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.  The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​
> •  This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.  Article 22(2)
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region.  What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."
> 
> "Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community."  Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."
> 
> Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."   The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> _"__The Council of the League of Nations:
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
> _
> In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power.  A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.
> 
> To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.
> 
> Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine.  It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​If Palestine had agreed to resolution 181 it would have been a treaty ceding half of Palestine to foreign colonial settlers.

There is no law requiring them to do that.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et a;,
> 
> Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant.  There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers.  In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement.  In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine.   The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.  The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"
> 
> In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." _
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).
> 
> •   A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.​
> •  A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948  First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.  The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​
> •  This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.  Article 22(2)
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region.  What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."
> 
> "Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community."  Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."
> 
> Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."   The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> _"__The Council of the League of Nations:
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
> _
> In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power.  A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.
> 
> To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.
> 
> Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine.  It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims.  No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate.  Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.

2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers,  did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

I'm actually surprised!    It makes no difference what the percentage or break-down of personal property ownership was --- in the region _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_.   Article 22 contains 9 clauses which I outlined in Posting #846; which were:

Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant

• *Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
• Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.*
• Article 22(3) The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant. The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed. It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
• Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities. Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
• Article 22(5) Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
• Article 22(6) Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
*• Article 22(7) Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
• Article 22(8) Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
• Article 22(9) Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.*​In the UN Manual, Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME, it is important to note that in the days the Covenant was written, the members of the League of Nations saved this thought:

The first two and the last three paragraphs of the Article formulate the guiding principles and may be said to constitute the framework of the new institution, the aim of which they clearly define. These provisions are applicable to all territories under mandate.

Without going into controversial questions regarding the legal nature of the mandates, it may be said that the following main principles emerge from these provisions:  The aim of the institution is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question.​Today, we have to examine:

•  Article 22(1) ---  what the phrase "the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples" actually means.
•  Article 22(2) ---  and how this impacts the consideration that the Arab Palestinian was not will to accept of participate in the development of self-governing institutions; thus, contributing to the results that have lead them to the condition they are in today.​


			
				montelatici said:
			
		

> 1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims.  No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate.  Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.
> 
> 2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers,  did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.


*(COMMENT)*

Whether the damage done to the "well-being" of the Arab Palestinians externally inspired, or whether it was politically inspired, it was politically toxic and a self-inflicted wound.  But as we have already discussed,  The Arab Palestinians rejected,not just once, but several time, to be part of the self-governing institution.

There was NO TRANSFER of any population from anywhere in the world to Palestine.  This is just pure propaganda that twists the words as to give the impression that something illegal happened.  Just as the US accepts people from all over the world through Immigration Laws, so it was the case that the Mandatory was instructed by the Council to facilitate Jewish immigration of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home;  a decision made by the Allied Powers under Treaty Article 16 _(holding the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned)._

*(CAUTIOUS LANGUAGE)*

The Mandatory did not set the conditions that pushed a political confrontation and touched-off the aggressive advance and introduction of Arab League Forces

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I'm actually surprised!    It makes no difference what the percentage or break-down of personal property ownership was --- in the region _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_.   Article 22 contains 9 clauses which I outlined in Posting #846; which were:
> 
> Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant
> 
> • *Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
> • Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.*
> • Article 22(3) The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant. The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed. It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
> • Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities. Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
> • Article 22(5) Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
> • Article 22(6) Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
> *• Article 22(7) Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
> • Article 22(8) Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> • Article 22(9) Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.*​In the UN Manual, Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME, it is important to note that in the days the Covenant was written, the members of the League of Nations saved this thought:
> 
> The first two and the last three paragraphs of the Article formulate the guiding principles and may be said to constitute the framework of the new institution, the aim of which they clearly define. These provisions are applicable to all territories under mandate.
> 
> Without going into controversial questions regarding the legal nature of the mandates, it may be said that the following main principles emerge from these provisions:  The aim of the institution is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question.​Today, we have to examine:
> 
> •  Article 22(1) ---  what the phrase "the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples" actually means.
> •  Article 22(2) ---  and how this impacts the consideration that the Arab Palestinian was not will to accept of participate in the development of self-governing institutions; thus, contributing to the results that have lead them to the condition they are in today.​
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims.  No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate.  Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.
> 
> 2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers,  did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether the damage done to the "well-being" of the Arab Palestinians externally inspired, or whether it was politically inspired, it was politically toxic and a self-inflicted wound.  But as we have already discussed,  The Arab Palestinians rejected,not just once, but several time, to be part of the self-governing institution.
> 
> There was NO TRANSFER of any population from anywhere in the world to Palestine.  This is just pure propaganda that twists the words as to give the impression that something illegal happened.  Just as the US accepts people from all over the world through Immigration Laws, so it was the case that the Mandatory was instructed by the Council to facilitate Jewish immigration of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home;  a decision made by the Allied Powers under Treaty Article 16 _(holding the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned)._
> 
> *(CAUTIOUS LANGUAGE)*
> 
> The Mandatory did not set the conditions that pushed a political confrontation and touched-off the aggressive advance and introduction of Arab League Forces
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


1. Article 22 sets the  primary  tangible obligation to the inhabitants on the part of the Mandatory.

2. There was nothing self-inflicted about facilitating a colonial settlement project in Palestine for Europeans at the expense of the native inhabitants. The damage was inflicted by the actions of the Mandatory which contravened the primary obligation of insuring the well-being of the inhabitants.

3. There was a transfer of a European colonist population to Palestine.  The Zionists admitted as much in public declarations.

The rest of your bullshit is your usual tap dance that makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Shusha

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?



Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et a;,
> 
> Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant.  There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers.  In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement.  In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine.   The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.  The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"
> 
> In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." _
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).
> 
> •   A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.​
> •  A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948  First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.  The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​
> •  This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.  Article 22(2)
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region.  What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."
> 
> "Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community."  Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."
> 
> Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."   The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> _"__The Council of the League of Nations:
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
> _
> In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power.  A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.
> 
> To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.
> 
> Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine.  It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.​
> The Palestinians declined to be recognized as an inferior group.
Click to expand...








 STOP TRYING TO USE MODERN DAY LAWS RETROSPECTIVELY.

 The law in 1923 and 1948 was different to what we have today, and the arab muslims lost all rights to the land they infested when they lost the war in 1917. As you have been repeatedly told article 22 has no bearing on the case as it was not meant for that purpose, and still you try and drive it in as if it did. The former inhabitants were given 78% of the land as their national home in 1924 and it was called trans Jordan. The remaining 22% was for the Jewish NATIONal home. END OF STORY
The arab muslims have used violence and terror to try and get all the land as dictated by their religion and have failed, even after enlisting morons like yourself to fight their corner. At the end of the day International laws of 1917, 1921, 1923 and 1949 prevail and the land is Jewish


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et a;,
> 
> Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant.  There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers.  In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement.  In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine.   The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.  The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"
> 
> In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." _
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).
> 
> •   A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.​
> •  A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948  First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.  The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​
> •  This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.  Article 22(2)
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region.  What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."
> 
> "Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community."  Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."
> 
> Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."   The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> _"__The Council of the League of Nations:
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
> _
> In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power.  A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.
> 
> To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.
> 
> Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine.  It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​If Palestine had agreed to resolution 181 it would have been a treaty ceding half of Palestine to foreign colonial settlers.
> 
> There is no law requiring them to do that.
Click to expand...







 There is no law granting them any of the land from the 28% of the mandate of Palestine granted for the Jewish NATIONal home is there. So how would they give up what they never held in the first place. Remember the Jews had already willingly given up 78% of their allocation to keep the peace. If they knew then what they know now they would have refused and told the LoN to take part of Saudi for the bribe to appease the Hashemite rulers


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
Click to expand...








 By what laws enacted prior to 1949 ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et a;,
> 
> Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant.  There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers.  In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement.  In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine.   The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.  The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"
> 
> In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> _To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which *are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, *there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation *and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." _
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).
> 
> •   A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947  Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.​
> •  A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948  First Special Report to the Security Council:  The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:
> 
> Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.  The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”​
> •  This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.  Article 22(2)
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region.  What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."
> 
> "Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community."  Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."
> 
> Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."   The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.
> 
> _"__The Council of the League of Nations:
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of *Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations*, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and..."
> _
> In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory.  Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power.  A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.
> 
> To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.
> 
> Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine.  It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims.  No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate.  Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.
> 
> 2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers,  did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.
Click to expand...








 Where does it say what you claim



*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





The last sentence sums up the whole of article 22, and clearly says that the LoN has the final say in all matters.



 No civil or religious rights of the time were breached and no international laws broken by taking the Jews and granting them 22% of the land as their NATIONal home. In fact the arab muslims breached international laws by migrating illegally en masse to Palestine post 1923.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I'm actually surprised!    It makes no difference what the percentage or break-down of personal property ownership was --- in the region _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_.   Article 22 contains 9 clauses which I outlined in Posting #846; which were:
> 
> Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant
> 
> • *Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
> • Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.*
> • Article 22(3) The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant. The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed. It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
> • Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities. Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
> • Article 22(5) Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
> • Article 22(6) Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
> *• Article 22(7) Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
> • Article 22(8) Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
> • Article 22(9) Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.*​In the UN Manual, Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME, it is important to note that in the days the Covenant was written, the members of the League of Nations saved this thought:
> 
> The first two and the last three paragraphs of the Article formulate the guiding principles and may be said to constitute the framework of the new institution, the aim of which they clearly define. These provisions are applicable to all territories under mandate.
> 
> Without going into controversial questions regarding the legal nature of the mandates, it may be said that the following main principles emerge from these provisions:  The aim of the institution is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question.​Today, we have to examine:
> 
> •  Article 22(1) ---  what the phrase "the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples" actually means.
> •  Article 22(2) ---  and how this impacts the consideration that the Arab Palestinian was not will to accept of participate in the development of self-governing institutions; thus, contributing to the results that have lead them to the condition they are in today.​
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims.  No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate.  Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.
> 
> 2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers,  did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether the damage done to the "well-being" of the Arab Palestinians externally inspired, or whether it was politically inspired, it was politically toxic and a self-inflicted wound.  But as we have already discussed,  The Arab Palestinians rejected,not just once, but several time, to be part of the self-governing institution.
> 
> There was NO TRANSFER of any population from anywhere in the world to Palestine.  This is just pure propaganda that twists the words as to give the impression that something illegal happened.  Just as the US accepts people from all over the world through Immigration Laws, so it was the case that the Mandatory was instructed by the Council to facilitate Jewish immigration of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home;  a decision made by the Allied Powers under Treaty Article 16 _(holding the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned)._
> 
> *(CAUTIOUS LANGUAGE)*
> 
> The Mandatory did not set the conditions that pushed a political confrontation and touched-off the aggressive advance and introduction of Arab League Forces
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Article 22 sets the  primary  tangible obligation to the inhabitants on the part of the Mandatory.
> 
> 2. There was nothing self-inflicted about facilitating a colonial settlement project in Palestine for Europeans at the expense of the native inhabitants. The damage was inflicted by the actions of the Mandatory which contravened the primary obligation of insuring the well-being of the inhabitants.
> 
> 3. There was a transfer of a European colonist population to Palestine.  The Zionists admitted as much in public declarations.
> 
> The rest of your bullshit is your usual tap dance that makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...







 1) where does it say that, show the words that mean it has an obligation to the inhabitants.

 2) what international laws of the time were breached and what civil rights were refused by granting 28% of the mandate of Palestine as the Jewish NATIONal home ?

3) what international laws of the time were breached in the process.

Any international laws must be shown in full with the date of their implementation.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
Click to expand...








 So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
Click to expand...

No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
Click to expand...









 In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.  


 SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.
Click to expand...

Whatever.....I'm off to London and Bari for a few days,.........keep trying Pheo


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.....I'm off to London and Bari for a few days,.........keep trying Pheo
Click to expand...







 No not whatever     you make the claim you produce the proof. A failure to do so means that you are a LYING POS


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.....I'm off to London and Bari for a few days,.........keep trying Pheo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No not whatever     you make the claim you produce the proof. A failure to do so means that you are a LYING POS
Click to expand...


Practice what you preach Phoney, practice what you preach!


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> 
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.....I'm off to London and Bari for a few days,.........keep trying Pheo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No not whatever     you make the claim you produce the proof. A failure to do so means that you are a LYING POS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Practice what you preach Phoney, practice what you preach!
Click to expand...






 I do and you seem to ignore the reality. Over 1000 requests of links to prove your racist claims and all you do is run away and hide


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Over 1000 requests of links to prove your racist claims





And you can't even do that Phoney!


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1000 requests of links to prove your racist claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can't even do that Phoney!
Click to expand...







 So when will you provide the links requested, instead of projecting your failings onto others ?

 I at least give links until morons start ignoring requests to bring theirs to the board

 How about a link to prove your claim above ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Jimmy Johnson - Israel: A Settler Colonial State? *

**
**


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> *Jimmy Johnson - Israel: A Settler Colonial State? *
> 
> **
> **









 Just one persons POV that has no basis in reality.

 What nation sent the Jews to colonise the holy lands then as that is the basis for any such claims. As in the English were sent from England to colonise America, they were not invited by the lands sovereign rulers


----------



## Humanity

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1000 requests of links to prove your racist claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can't even do that Phoney!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when will you provide the links requested, instead of projecting your failings onto others ?
> 
> I at least give links until morons start ignoring requests to bring theirs to the board
> 
> How about a link to prove your claim above ?
Click to expand...


You schmuck Phoney... 

You SAY you provide links yet, you have failed to provide a link to your claim above!


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Joseph Massad on Peace Is War: Negotiations, Israeli settler colonialism, and the Palestinians *

**


----------



## Phoenall

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1000 requests of links to prove your racist claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can't even do that Phoney!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when will you provide the links requested, instead of projecting your failings onto others ?
> 
> I at least give links until morons start ignoring requests to bring theirs to the board
> 
> How about a link to prove your claim above ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You schmuck Phoney...
> 
> You SAY you provide links yet, you have failed to provide a link to your claim above!
Click to expand...








 What claim above is that then ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> *Joseph Massad on Peace Is War: Negotiations, Israeli settler colonialism, and the Palestinians *
> 
> **









 AND what are you trying to prove, other than you can only find islamonazi propaganda to support your POV


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.
Click to expand...

BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............
Click to expand...







 See no evidence again so you deflect away from the truth


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See no evidence again so you deflect away from the truth
Click to expand...

If I called you boy you would complain that I was being Anti-Semitic...like you have done before.


----------



## montelatici

P F Tinmore said:


> *Joseph Massad on Peace Is War: Negotiations, Israeli settler colonialism, and the Palestinians *
> 
> **



What I said.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?
> 
> 
> 
> No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we  all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.
> 
> 
> SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See no evidence again so you deflect away from the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I called you boy you would complain that I was being Anti-Semitic...like you have done before.
Click to expand...




 How would calling me boy be anti semitic, you really are silly sometimes in your attempts at twisting the truth. Calling you boy in the deep south of the US of A would be racist, and no one would care.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Interesting pieces of history.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not try and force the rule of law retrospectively because we hate the Jews, like you do constantly. The rule of law says the arab muslims have no legal right to the west bank or Jerusalem, so why don't you shout for it to be acted on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...






 I refer you to your many posts were you use international laws of the last 2 decades as hammers to crack 1920 nuts. Your claims of rights infringed when the rights did not exist until 50 years later. The LoN being a body capable under existing international laws and treaties enacted international laws through treaty and the arab muslims had no say in the matter being just squatters on land that the LoN owned. In 1923 they placed into treaty the partitiuon of Palestine into 2 separate entities arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. The arab Palestine comprised 78% of Palestine leaving just 22% for the Jewish NATIONal home.


 Now if you are such a stickler for international laws and human rights why aren't you fighting for the rights of the Jews and foe international laws to be recognised when they are in the Jews favour.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rule of law in this situation took account of the fact that the Arab world lost their fight every time they've fought it.  In this way the rule of law can only be so charitable.  The reality remains that you have to choose strong allies, fight and win, or become accustomed to living in an alien society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are still stuck in the duh bomb'em mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are still stuck in the "one day we will outnumber the Jews 10 million to one and be victorious over them" until then you will lose every time because you cant agree on a common leadership so end up getting bombed year after year. One day you will realise that it is your own stupid fault that you are losing every battle, when that day comes you will find it is too late to make amends
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't me, chief.
Click to expand...






 You have spouted the demographics bullshit in the past so don't deny it now. The arab muslims have always had the superior forces and have failed to take advantage because of their religious commands and greed


----------



## Phoenall

Programmer said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those theoretical questions _(calling for the hypothetical:  "what if")_ where the answer is:  "We'll never know now."
> 
> When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father.  The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten.  The names and places like Monte Cassino, the  Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them.  The Battle of Bataan and  Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me.  They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​
> It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers.  I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs.  The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.
> 
> When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling  the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:
> View attachment 56920​
> Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units _(Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army)_ were both NAZIs: (i)  Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii)  Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht.  Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.
> 
> Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element _(Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home"
> 
> That's the most biased nonsense I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true though, and anyone who is not brainwashed can see it as reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to my original point, this "plight" of the Jewish people and anger at the "arrogant" Palestinians wouldn't exist if the creators of Israel had opted out instead of creating the country.  If they had know the insane religious clusterfuck it would create, they never would have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis love this bullshit, themselves being religious clusterfuckers.
Click to expand...







 And the anti Jewish Nazis blame everyone but the muslims for the problem. The British did what they thought right and proper in 1917 and the civilised world agreed with them. By 1925 the political climate had changed and anti Semtism was on the rise because the banks had gone bad. The Jews got the blame and so Europe started to kill them of and try to sort the economic problems, they had nowhere to go other than Palestine which was theirs by international law. The LoN should have stepped up to the mark and told the arab muslims to back of or lose their nations, then this would not be the problem we have now.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those theoretical questions _(calling for the hypothetical:  "what if")_ where the answer is:  "We'll never know now."
> 
> When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father.  The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten.  The names and places like Monte Cassino, the  Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them.  The Battle of Bataan and  Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me.  They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​
> It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers.  I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs.  The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.
> 
> When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling  the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:
> View attachment 56920​
> Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units _(Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army)_ were both NAZIs: (i)  Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii)  Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht.  Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.
> 
> Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element _(Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again RoccoR descends into spouting drivel, whilest simultaneously trying to create sympathy by invoking the Holocaust and "NAZI" Arabs. Are you taking lessons from Phoney? It's embarassing.
> 
> Had you bothered to do even a modicum of research, you would have discovered that ATLAS was an Abwehr  operation, nothing at all to do with the SS, the unit was composed of ex-Brandenburg Regiment German soldiers who were born in Palestine amongst the Templar community of slighly whacko Protestant Christian "millenials", the two Muslims involved Hasan Salama and Abdul Latif were never Nazis.
> 
> Fawzi al-Qawuqi was given a colonel's rank for propaganda purposes, but never swore any German military oath, nor did he declare any allegience to Hitler.  Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni's "ties" to Hitler consisted of one 90 minute meeting during which a photo was taken.
Click to expand...






 Rat boy has no answer to the points raised again so resorts to LIES, HALF TRUTHS and PERSONAL ATTACKS.

 How is linking to and posting source material that is from valid sites and trusted sources, so how can they be " drivel ".


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting pieces of history.









 Once again a one sided anti semitic rant that you have dredged up to racially attack the Jews and their human, civil, religious and legal rights. Something you demand be handed to the arab muslims all the time, so why not the Jews ?


----------



## gt1085

The Restoration of Israel
…14"Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. 15"I will also plantthem on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God.
After the Bar Kokhba revolt of 135 AD, Emperor Hadrian cleared the Holy Land of all Jews–both real and fake....The real Jews either believed in the Jewish Messiah and became Christians or disappeared from history forever. The Babylonian Jews moved to Hispania and renamed it Sepharad. From that time onward they always referred to themselves as "Jews" . . . and never as Samaritans.

Jehoshua the Jewish Messiah said:

I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan(Revelation 2:9).

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee (Revelation 3:9).

St. Paul–a Hebrew of the Hebrews–gave the following definition of a Jew:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Romans 2:28-29).

Most people who call themselves "Jews" today to not meet the Bible criterion of being a Jew. Therefore they must be LIARS and JEHOVAH promised that no liars would enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie (Revelation 22:15).

Most people believe that the worst criminals are murderers, robbers, rapists, pedophiles, drug-pushers etc., etc., but there is a far worse crime and that is CHANGING THE WORD OF ELOHIM.
During the Babylonian Captivity, the real Jews were taken to Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar colonized Samaria with counterfeit "Jews."

Their "holy" mount was Mount Gerizin instead of Jerusalem.

The real Jews _despised_ them and called them "devils."


----------



## gt1085

The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
*Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*


----------



## Hossfly

gt1085 said:


> The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
> *Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*



Lookie here, Cheetah is able to type and also read the hate sites.  Let's give  him a hand and a banana as a prize and set up an interview with Louie Farrakhan to be hired as a secretary with these skills.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
> *Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here, Cheetah is able to type and also read the hate sites.  Let's give  him a hand and a banana as a prize and set up an interview with Louie Farrakhan to be hired as a secretary with these skills.
Click to expand...


Actually, Revelations 3:9 is in the Bible.

Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 3:9 - New International Version


----------



## gt1085

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
> *Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here, Cheetah is able to type and also read the hate sites.  Let's give  him a hand and a banana as a prize and set up an interview with Louie Farrakhan to be hired as a secretary with these skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Revelations 3:9 is in the Bible.
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 3:9 - New International Version
Click to expand...

No,I tend to stay away from newly written material.Especially since 
*John Murdock got something to dowith rewiting the Bible.*


----------



## gt1085

Hossfly said:


> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
> *Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here, Cheetah is able to type and also read the hate sites.  Let's give  him a hand and a banana as a prize and set up an interview with Louie Farrakhan to be hired as a secretary with these skills.
Click to expand...

*FROM GODS TO APES (PART 8)...REVERSE ENGINEERING THE CAUCASIAN RACE*
***Okay smarty pants this is your blood brother.*


----------



## Hossfly

gt1085 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
> *Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here, Cheetah is able to type and also read the hate sites.  Let's give  him a hand and a banana as a prize and set up an interview with Louie Farrakhan to be hired as a secretary with these skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FROM GODS TO APES (PART 8)...REVERSE ENGINEERING THE CAUCASIAN RACE*
> ***Okay smarty pants this is your blood brother.*
Click to expand...


Are you kidding?.  Why not have your DNA tested to verify that you are Cheetah's relative.  You could have appeared in the new Tarzan film swinging from tree to tree.

Since this chimp is designing for Melanin Apparel (everyone should Google this site to see where he is coming from), maybe he can make a few designs featuring himself with Cheetah, his close relative.


----------



## gt1085

lol,don`t get mad,i`m not picking,Lemur monkey is on your DNA.So why you mad at me?


----------



## Hossfly

gt1085 said:


> lol,don`t get mad,i`m not picking,Lemur monkey is on your DNA.So why you mad at me?View attachment 80801


The only animals in my DNA are alligators, wolverines and Texas longhorns. All bad ass animals.


----------



## gt1085

Hossfly said:


> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,don`t get mad,i`m not picking,Lemur monkey is on your DNA.So why you mad at me?View attachment 80801
> 
> 
> 
> The only animals in my DNA are alligators, wolverines and Texas longhorns. All bad ass animals.
Click to expand...

Lemurs.Lucy,snub nose monkey the ape and many more.Don`t be mad at me it`s  your history.


----------



## Challenger

Hossfly said:


> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,don`t get mad,i`m not picking,Lemur monkey is on your DNA.So why you mad at me?View attachment 80801
> 
> 
> 
> The only animals in my DNA are alligators, wolverines and Texas longhorns. All bad ass animals.
Click to expand...


So that explains a lot. You have a brain that would fit into half a table spoon, are a member of the weasel family and prefer to follow the herd rather than think for yourself. Yup, sounds about right.


----------



## Coyote

*There's been an interesting diversion into the genetics of animal/human hybrids...BUT....this is the IP and we need to get back on topic please *


----------



## Phoenall

gt1085 said:


> The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
> *Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*








 Still waiting for your evidence of these fake's that did not exist in any history prior to the mid 20C.

 If you knew anything about scripture you would realise that you cant take it as single verses, but as whole chapters. It is not the koran that has to be taken as separate verses as intended by mo'mad .    Only a moronic muslim would try and pass of the Bible/Torah as individual verses, as this is how they are taught the koran


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
> *Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here, Cheetah is able to type and also read the hate sites.  Let's give  him a hand and a banana as a prize and set up an interview with Louie Farrakhan to be hired as a secretary with these skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Revelations 3:9 is in the Bible.
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 3:9 - New International Version
Click to expand...







 Proving yet again that you are a RACIST MORON and deny the Jews their history and rights


----------



## Phoenall

Hossfly said:


> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true Jews are not in their land as of this day,the insects in the israel today are Khazars Fake jews.
> *Revelation 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan these are the occupiers today.and have nothing to do with Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lookie here, Cheetah is able to type and also read the hate sites.  Let's give  him a hand and a banana as a prize and set up an interview with Louie Farrakhan to be hired as a secretary with these skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FROM GODS TO APES (PART 8)...REVERSE ENGINEERING THE CAUCASIAN RACE*
> ***Okay smarty pants this is your blood brother.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?.  Why not have your DNA tested to verify that you are Cheetah's relative.  You could have appeared in the new Tarzan film swinging from tree to tree.
> 
> Since this chimp is designing for Melanin Apparel (everyone should Google this site to see where he is coming from), maybe he can make a few designs featuring himself with Cheetah, his close relative.
Click to expand...







 A lot of fake blacks on that site when you look, almost as if the skin tone has been sprayed on or photo shopped


----------



## Hossfly

​ 
*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
_Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_

*וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
במדבר יג:כ

u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
*Jerusalem Inspiration*
Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.


----------



## gt1085

Challenger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,don`t get mad,i`m not picking,Lemur monkey is on your DNA.So why you mad at me?View attachment 80801
> 
> 
> 
> The only animals in my DNA are alligators, wolverines and Texas longhorns. All bad ass animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that explains a lot. You have a brain that would fit into half a table spoon, are a member of the weasel family and prefer to follow the herd rather than think for yourself. Yup, sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Let you tell it,you don`t a Brain.


----------



## gt1085

Challenger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,don`t get mad,i`m not picking,Lemur monkey is on your DNA.So why you mad at me?View attachment 80801
> 
> 
> 
> The only animals in my DNA are alligators, wolverines and Texas longhorns. All bad ass animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that explains a lot. You have a brain that would fit into half a table spoon, are a member of the weasel family and prefer to follow the herd rather than think for yourself. Yup, sounds about right.
Click to expand...

*The so called Jews in Israel are not true Jews, they are Khazars Ashkenazi Jews Identity theft*
**


----------



## Phoenall

gt1085 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,don`t get mad,i`m not picking,Lemur monkey is on your DNA.So why you mad at me?View attachment 80801
> 
> 
> 
> The only animals in my DNA are alligators, wolverines and Texas longhorns. All bad ass animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that explains a lot. You have a brain that would fit into half a table spoon, are a member of the weasel family and prefer to follow the herd rather than think for yourself. Yup, sounds about right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The so called Jews in Israel are not true Jews, they are Khazars Ashkenazi Jews Identity theft*
> **
Click to expand...






Still waiting for the link to their existence prior to the mid 20C when they were invented. No mention even in the afro history books of any such place as Khazaria before say 1980, why is that do you suppose ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...

P F Tinmore said: ↑
RoccoR said: ↑
P F Tinmore, et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:

First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world,

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
Click to expand...
10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
Click to expand...

P F Tinmore said: ↑
What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
*(COMMENT)*

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory. 

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
Click to expand...
*(COMMENT)*

Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.

Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."

Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A

This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
-------------------------
When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.


----------



## gt1085

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.


all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.


----------



## Hossfly

gt1085 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
Click to expand...

How come, Mr. Schwarzer, that even Black people marry Jews if nobody on this planet likes them?  Do you think that everyone on this planet likes Black people, especially  those like you?  Think again.  Now let's hear you sing along.  Perhaps  you can teach it to those in the Boko Haram to keep their minds off killing Christians.


Looks like Mr. Schwarzer is taking time off from his duties as chief designer for Melanin Apparel, which if the readers will remember was his original avatar (the logo for the company) when he started posting on this forum.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> ​*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
> _Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_
> 
> *וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
> במדבר יג:כ
> 
> u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
> *Jerusalem Inspiration*
> Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.


It was the same under the Palestinians BUT Zionist Trash made out NO ONE LIVED THERE....what a joke


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> ​*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
> _Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_
> 
> *וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
> במדבר יג:כ
> 
> u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
> *Jerusalem Inspiration*
> Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.




Hi Hoss,Like your Pro Zionist stance,who are not Original Jews but a polyglot of other peoples(A VERSION),so too is your above vid by Boney M (A VERSION)
Herewith is the ORIGINAL circa 1969 by the Melodians....Rivers of Babylon is actually PSALM 137 verse 1......Enjoy Hossy


I would also like to share with you friend a Reggae rendition of PSALM 23 which I feel suits you very well indeed....You Are A Good Man Hoss



And to round off this Biblical Trilogy .....The 1965 Original of River Jordan,by The Basses with the Soul Vendors(Lynn Taitt and the Jets)

Steve


----------



## theliq

gt1085 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
Click to expand...

well they are but their behaviour at times is incendury,which causes some folk to dislike them,despise them and history shows hate them,which is a very dangerous formula for the future,Israelis inparticular the Government and Zionists need to pull their head in and act like a citizen of the world,instead of being isolationist which they seem to like for some ungodly reason.
Maybe they continue the Anti-Semitic card for Sympathy but the world has seen past this obvious Ruse and are not impressed how they Totally Repress the Palestinians and WORSE.

No the Real Jews are fine ...the major problem are all these peudo Zionists from places unknown, who until 1948 had NO HISTORY.....WHATSOEVER.

Incidentally Palestinians are A SEMITIC PEOPLE,which makes the Zionists the WORST ANTI-SEMITES IN HISTORY......steven


----------



## Phoenall

gt1085 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
Click to expand...








 And I dont recognise you or anything you say because you are a complete RACIST MORON


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
> _Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_
> 
> *וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
> במדבר יג:כ
> 
> u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
> *Jerusalem Inspiration*
> Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the same under the Palestinians BUT Zionist Trash made out NO ONE LIVED THERE....what a joke
Click to expand...










 And you have a link to prove your claim, and why do you constantly bring up the same off topic subject every time you are faced with the truth and reality ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
> _Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_
> 
> *וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
> במדבר יג:כ
> 
> u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
> *Jerusalem Inspiration*
> Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hoss,Like your Pro Zionist stance,who are not Original Jews but a polyglot of other peoples(A VERSION),so too is your above vid by Boney M (A VERSION)
> Herewith is the ORIGINAL circa 1969 by the Melodians....Rivers of Babylon is actually PSALM 137 verse 1......Enjoy Hossy
> 
> 
> I would also like to share with you friend a Reggae rendition of PSALM 23 which I feel suits you very well indeed....You Are A Good Man Hoss
> 
> 
> 
> And to round off this Biblical Trilogy .....The 1965 Original of River Jordan,by The Basses with the Soul Vendors(Lynn Taitt and the Jets)
> 
> Steve
Click to expand...








 AGAIN OFF TOPIC DEFLECTION AND DERAILMENT


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well they are but their behaviour at times is incendury,which causes some folk to dislike them,despise them and history shows hate them,which is a very dangerous formula for the future,Israelis inparticular the Government and Zionists need to pull their head in and act like a citizen of the world,instead of being isolationist which they seem to like for some ungodly reason.
> Maybe they continue the Anti-Semitic card for Sympathy but the world has seen past this obvious Ruse and are not impressed how they Totally Repress the Palestinians and WORSE.
> 
> No the Real Jews are fine ...the major problem are all these peudo Zionists from places unknown, who until 1948 had NO HISTORY.....WHATSOEVER.
> 
> Incidentally Palestinians are A SEMITIC PEOPLE,which makes the Zionists the WORST ANTI-SEMITES IN HISTORY......steven
Click to expand...








 Who are these real Jews you keep bringing up as to the world at large the Jews that have a 93% DNA match to the original inhabitants are the real Jews. And these happen to be European Jews, American Jews and Middle Eastern Jews. And the worst part is the arab muslims have no DNA match to these Jews other than that found in the rest of humanity.

 ONCE AGAIN YOU REPEAT THE TERMS USED ON THE WHITE SUPREMACIST, ISLAMONAZI AND NAZI SITES WORD FOR WORD. THE TERM ANTI SEMITE REFERS TO A DISTINCT ANTI JEW RACISM  PROMOTED BY THE NAZI'S OF GERMANY, AND CARRIED ON BY MODERN DAY NAZI'S WHO HIDE BEHIND SEMANTICS.

 YOU ARE CAUGHT OUT AGAIN BEING A NAZI POS SCUM


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well they are but their behaviour at times is incendury,which causes some folk to dislike them,despise them and history shows hate them,which is a very dangerous formula for the future,Israelis inparticular the Government and Zionists need to pull their head in and act like a citizen of the world,instead of being isolationist which they seem to like for some ungodly reason.
> Maybe they continue the Anti-Semitic card for Sympathy but the world has seen past this obvious Ruse and are not impressed how they Totally Repress the Palestinians and WORSE.
> 
> No the Real Jews are fine ...the major problem are all these peudo Zionists from places unknown, who until 1948 had NO HISTORY.....WHATSOEVER.
> 
> Incidentally Palestinians are A SEMITIC PEOPLE,which makes the Zionists the WORST ANTI-SEMITES IN HISTORY......steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these real Jews you keep bringing up as to the world at large the Jews that have a 93% DNA match to the original inhabitants are the real Jews. And these happen to be European Jews, American Jews and Middle Eastern Jews. And the worst part is the arab muslims have no DNA match to these Jews other than that found in the rest of humanity.
> 
> ONCE AGAIN YOU REPEAT THE TERMS USED ON THE WHITE SUPREMACIST, ISLAMONAZI AND NAZI SITES WORD FOR WORD. THE TERM ANTI SEMITE REFERS TO A DISTINCT ANTI JEW RACISM  PROMOTED BY THE NAZI'S OF GERMANY, AND CARRIED ON BY MODERN DAY NAZI'S WHO HIDE BEHIND SEMANTICS.
> 
> YOU ARE CAUGHT OUT AGAIN BEING A NAZI POS SCUM
Click to expand...

That's no answer,considering WE ALL HAVE ABOUT 95% of an Apes DNA......Look Pheo,you posts thesedays are becoming more desperate by the hour....I know why...because the Greatliq has EXPOSED YOUR INFANTILE RAVING RANTINGS for what the are......a CROCK OF BULLSHIT.You have become what I told you A COMPLETE BORE and a COMPULSIVE LIAR with it.

Australians never collaborated with the NAZIS but YOU ZIONIST FILTH DID......FACT.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I dont recognise you or anything you say because you are a complete RACIST MORON
Click to expand...

Not Racist at all......just despise Zionists like you


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
> _Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_
> 
> *וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
> במדבר יג:כ
> 
> u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
> *Jerusalem Inspiration*
> Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hoss,Like your Pro Zionist stance,who are not Original Jews but a polyglot of other peoples(A VERSION),so too is your above vid by Boney M (A VERSION)
> Herewith is the ORIGINAL circa 1969 by the Melodians....Rivers of Babylon is actually PSALM 137 verse 1......Enjoy Hossy
> 
> 
> I would also like to share with you friend a Reggae rendition of PSALM 23 which I feel suits you very well indeed....You Are A Good Man Hoss
> 
> 
> 
> And to round off this Biblical Trilogy .....The 1965 Original of River Jordan,by The Basses with the Soul Vendors(Lynn Taitt and the Jets)
> 
> Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN OFF TOPIC DEFLECTION AND DERAILMENT
Click to expand...

Not at all just sharing beautiful Bible inspired Music..........what you loath is that I get on openly with Hoss and although on differing sides at time,I respect him..........I love a lot of folk because they inspire,......everything you are NOT,I'm sorry to say......You are always rude and slandering towards Penny,Tinnie and all the Greats on here.......but they are nice.....me I expose you for the RAMPANT IDIOT YOU ARE


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well they are but their behaviour at times is incendury,which causes some folk to dislike them,despise them and history shows hate them,which is a very dangerous formula for the future,Israelis inparticular the Government and Zionists need to pull their head in and act like a citizen of the world,instead of being isolationist which they seem to like for some ungodly reason.
> Maybe they continue the Anti-Semitic card for Sympathy but the world has seen past this obvious Ruse and are not impressed how they Totally Repress the Palestinians and WORSE.
> 
> No the Real Jews are fine ...the major problem are all these peudo Zionists from places unknown, who until 1948 had NO HISTORY.....WHATSOEVER.
> 
> Incidentally Palestinians are A SEMITIC PEOPLE,which makes the Zionists the WORST ANTI-SEMITES IN HISTORY......steven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these real Jews you keep bringing up as to the world at large the Jews that have a 93% DNA match to the original inhabitants are the real Jews. And these happen to be European Jews, American Jews and Middle Eastern Jews. And the worst part is the arab muslims have no DNA match to these Jews other than that found in the rest of humanity.
> 
> ONCE AGAIN YOU REPEAT THE TERMS USED ON THE WHITE SUPREMACIST, ISLAMONAZI AND NAZI SITES WORD FOR WORD. THE TERM ANTI SEMITE REFERS TO A DISTINCT ANTI JEW RACISM  PROMOTED BY THE NAZI'S OF GERMANY, AND CARRIED ON BY MODERN DAY NAZI'S WHO HIDE BEHIND SEMANTICS.
> 
> YOU ARE CAUGHT OUT AGAIN BEING A NAZI POS SCUM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's no answer,considering WE ALL HAVE ABOUT 95% of an Apes DNA......Look Pheo,you posts thesedays are becoming more desperate by the hour....I know why...because the Greatliq has EXPOSED YOUR INFANTILE RAVING RANTINGS for what the are......a CROCK OF BULLSHIT.You have become what I told you A COMPLETE BORE and a COMPULSIVE LIAR with it.
> 
> Australians never collaborated with the NAZIS but YOU ZIONIST FILTH DID......FACT.
Click to expand...








 Try again LIAR as we only have 87% match and an 85% match with most other animals. 

 It is youir LIES that are becoming more desperate as you lose at evey turn because your sources are being shown to be nazi, whitesupremacist, islamic Jew hating sites. 
 You are now a laughing stock and no one comes to your aid in case they get sucked into your depravity with you. You have no support and it is time to get out while you can and find another hobby.

YOU ARE BUSTED AND SHOWN TO BE DESPERATE FOR ATTENTION SO LIE CONSTANTLY, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THIS LINK THAT CLAIMS THE JEWS MURDERED 100,000 CHILDREN AS THE ONES YOU PRODUCED DID NOT SAY ANYTHING OF THE KIND.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I dont recognise you or anything you say because you are a complete RACIST MORON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Racist at all......just despise Zionists like you
Click to expand...






 NO THAT IS YOUR SHIELD THAT YOU HIDE BEHIND, THE REALITY IS YOU ARE A RACIST POS NAZI SCUM THAT HAS NO RIGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO MINGLE WITH DECENT PEOPLE. TO YOU ALL JEWS ARE ZIONISTS AS THAT IS WHAT YOUR HANDLER HAS TOLD YOU IS THE WAY TO NOT FALL FOUL OF RACE LAWS, HE WAS WRONG AND YOU ARE HEADING FOR A BIG FALL.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
> _Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_
> 
> *וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
> במדבר יג:כ
> 
> u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
> *Jerusalem Inspiration*
> Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hoss,Like your Pro Zionist stance,who are not Original Jews but a polyglot of other peoples(A VERSION),so too is your above vid by Boney M (A VERSION)
> Herewith is the ORIGINAL circa 1969 by the Melodians....Rivers of Babylon is actually PSALM 137 verse 1......Enjoy Hossy
> 
> 
> I would also like to share with you friend a Reggae rendition of PSALM 23 which I feel suits you very well indeed....You Are A Good Man Hoss
> 
> 
> 
> And to round off this Biblical Trilogy .....The 1965 Original of River Jordan,by The Basses with the Soul Vendors(Lynn Taitt and the Jets)
> 
> Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN OFF TOPIC DEFLECTION AND DERAILMENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all just sharing beautiful Bible inspired Music..........what you loath is that I get on openly with Hoss and although on differing sides at time,I respect him..........I love a lot of folk because they inspire,......everything you are NOT,I'm sorry to say......You are always rude and slandering towards Penny,Tinnie and all the Greats on here.......but they are nice.....me I expose you for the RAMPANT IDIOT YOU ARE
Click to expand...







 LIAR you goad and incite all the time so you can go crawling to the mods and get other posters kicked of the board. We can tell when you are doing this as we start to get messages about our posts that tell the truth about the LIES you post


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
> _Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_
> 
> *וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
> במדבר יג:כ
> 
> u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
> *Jerusalem Inspiration*
> Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hoss,Like your Pro Zionist stance,who are not Original Jews but a polyglot of other peoples(A VERSION),so too is your above vid by Boney M (A VERSION)
> Herewith is the ORIGINAL circa 1969 by the Melodians....Rivers of Babylon is actually PSALM 137 verse 1......Enjoy Hossy
> 
> 
> I would also like to share with you friend a Reggae rendition of PSALM 23 which I feel suits you very well indeed....You Are A Good Man Hoss
> 
> 
> 
> And to round off this Biblical Trilogy .....The 1965 Original of River Jordan,by The Basses with the Soul Vendors(Lynn Taitt and the Jets)
> 
> Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN OFF TOPIC DEFLECTION AND DERAILMENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all just sharing beautiful Bible inspired Music..........what you loath is that I get on openly with Hoss and although on differing sides at time,I respect him..........I love a lot of folk because they inspire,......everything you are NOT,I'm sorry to say......You are always rude and slandering towards Penny,Tinnie and all the Greats on here.......but they are nice.....me I expose you for the RAMPANT IDIOT YOU ARE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR you goad and incite all the time so you can go crawling to the mods and get other posters kicked of the board. We can tell when you are doing this as we start to get messages about our posts that tell the truth about the LIES you post
Click to expand...

Why do you look in the MIRROR all the time and speak about yourself thus ????????


----------



## yiostheoy

gt1085 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol,don`t get mad,i`m not picking,Lemur monkey is on your DNA.So why you mad at me?View attachment 80801
> 
> 
> 
> The only animals in my DNA are alligators, wolverines and Texas longhorns. All bad ass animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that explains a lot. You have a brain that would fit into half a table spoon, are a member of the weasel family and prefer to follow the herd rather than think for yourself. Yup, sounds about right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The so called Jews in Israel are not true Jews, they are Khazars Ashkenazi Jews Identity theft*
> **
Click to expand...

Why do you keep spamming this ancient thread ???


----------



## yiostheoy

Coyote said:


> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *


When I visited Israel myself I did an extensive study of the recreation of The Jewish State.

The best starting point is the end of the 2nd Temple Period when due to rebellion at Jerusalem the Romans sacked and destroyed it and murdered all the residents.  By then the "Christian Jews" had already left, according to Eusebius.

From that point on the Jews were a people without a nation, for the next 2000 years.

By 1917 the Jews has the financial and political strength to claim their ancient lands back, and by then the Turkish Ottoman Empire was weak enough that mandating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine was first feasible.

From 1917 to 1948 immigration was at first a trickle, but then after WW2 it was a torrent.

Long story short, the Jews regained their ancient homeland at the expense of the occupants who were by then Palestinian Muslims.

So be it.


----------



## Coyote

yiostheoy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> When I visited Israel myself I did an extensive study of the recreation of The Jewish State.
> 
> The best starting point is the end of the 2nd Temple Period when due to rebellion at Jerusalem the Romans sacked and destroyed it and murdered all the residents.  By then the "Christian Jews" had already left, according to Eusebius.
> 
> From that point on the Jews were a people without a nation, for the next 2000 years.
> 
> By 1917 the Jews has the financial and political strength to claim their ancient lands back, and by then the Turkish Ottoman Empire was weak enough that mandating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine was first feasible.
> 
> From 1917 to 1948 immigration was at first a trickle, but then after WW2 it was a torrent.
> 
> Long story short, the Jews regained their ancient homeland at the expense of the occupants who were by then Palestinian Muslims.
> 
> So be it.
Click to expand...



I've simplified the way I look at it.

It's about human beings.

People who are trying to live their lives, raise families, create a future.  It's that simple.  Those people are called Jews and Palestinians, and they deserve the same respect and recognition as any other people.  It does not matter what happened a century or millinium ago.  Who cares who was "first" or "indiginous" or whatever.  What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenal and Steve...please get on topic and take the other stuff to the Flame Zone..ok?


----------



## Weatherman2020

The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.


----------



## Coyote

Weatherman2020 said:


> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.


Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum


----------



## Weatherman2020

Coyote said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
Click to expand...

Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?

Oh yeah, no Jews there.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> I've simplified the way I look at it.
> 
> It's about human beings.
> 
> People who are trying to live their lives, raise families, create a future.  It's that simple.  Those people are called Jews and Palestinians, and they deserve the same respect and recognition as any other people.  It does not matter what happened a century or millinium ago.  Who cares who was "first" or "indiginous" or whatever.  What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.




I agree.  That said, the reason why it keeps coming up is because Team Palestine uses it to negate the rights of the Jewish people.


----------



## gt1085

yiostheoy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> When I visited Israel myself I did an extensive study of the recreation of The Jewish State.
> 
> The best starting point is the end of the 2nd Temple Period when due to rebellion at Jerusalem the Romans sacked and destroyed it and murdered all the residents.  By then the "Christian Jews" had already left, according to Eusebius.
> 
> From that point on the Jews were a people without a nation, for the next 2000 years.
> 
> By 1917 the Jews has the financial and political strength to claim their ancient lands back, and by then the Turkish Ottoman Empire was weak enough that mandating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine was first feasible.
> 
> From 1917 to 1948 immigration was at first a trickle, but then after WW2 it was a torrent.
> 
> Long story short, the Jews regained their ancient homeland at the expense of the occupants who were by then Palestinian Muslims.
> 
> So be it.
Click to expand...

We, the Black Jews: Witness to the 'White Jewish Race' Myth,…


----------



## gt1085

Hossfly said:


> gt1085 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> RoccoR said: ↑
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,
> 
> Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
> Click to expand...
> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development. While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> 
> States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an
> effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development. Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favourable economic environment at the international level.
> Click to expand...
> 
> P F Tinmore said: ↑
> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .
> 
> Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)." According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.
> 
> Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.
> 
> Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time. And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.
> 
> Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.
> 
> Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis. These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League. Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.
> 
> Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards. The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.
> 
> No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations. In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970. And the Government of Yemen is a failed state. Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon. Syria is a complete shambles.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> Click to expand...
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?
> Click to expand...
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.
> 
> Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase: human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*" --- as opposed to "peoples."
> 
> Corroborating Source: A/RES/3/217 A
> 
> This argument is subterfuge. The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront. If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it. Don't hold us in suspense.
> -------------------------
> When they talk about people they mean everyone in general without distinction. Like in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 
> When they talk about peoples, they are referring to different groups of people defined by different territories. There are rights applied to peoples that do not apply to people.
> 
> 
> 
> all and good.But your law does`nt  to me,therefore it`s worthless.I answer to law the law of the land,then i answer to Morocco,1787 Peace And Friendship Treaty.Jew-ish is not a people,first thing,Secondly they are occupier of Israel like stolen it.they are not liked, or Loved any where on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come, Mr. Schwarzer, that even Black people marry Jews if nobody on this planet likes them?  Do you think that everyone on this planet likes Black people, especially  those like you?  Think again.  Now let's hear you sing along.  Perhaps  you can teach it to those in the Boko Haram to keep their minds off killing Christians.
> 
> 
> Looks like Mr. Schwarzer is taking time off from his duties as chief designer for Melanin Apparel, which if the readers will remember was his original avatar (the logo for the company) when he started posting on this forum.
Click to expand...

Lol.jew-ish is not even a people,lol,We, the Black Jews: Witness to the 'White Jewish Race' Myth,…


----------



## gt1085

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've simplified the way I look at it.
> 
> It's about human beings.
> 
> People who are trying to live their lives, raise families, create a future.  It's that simple.  Those people are called Jews and Palestinians, and they deserve the same respect and recognition as any other people.  It does not matter what happened a century or millinium ago.  Who cares who was "first" or "indiginous" or whatever.  What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That said, the reason why it keeps coming up is because Team Palestine uses it to negate the rights of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

jew-ish is not a people or tribe.So israelis lied.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​*And what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.’ Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.*
> _Numbers 13:20 (The Israel Bible™)_
> 
> *וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים*
> במדבר יג:כ
> 
> u-ma ha-a-retz hash-may-na he im ra-za ha-yash ba *aytz* im a-yeen v'-hit-kha-zak-tem ul-kakh-tem mip-ree ha-a-retz v'-ha-ya-meem y'-may bi-ku-ray a-na-veem
> *Jerusalem Inspiration*
> Today's verse describes the details of the spying mission sent into the Holy Land from the desert.  Did you know that most of the information meant to be gathered was completely agricultural?  The richness of the land and the multitude of trees, were a sure sign of blessing meant to encourage the spies.  By looking at those same qualities in modern Israel, we feel supremely blessed by the growing, blooming, rich fertile soil of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hoss,Like your Pro Zionist stance,who are not Original Jews but a polyglot of other peoples(A VERSION),so too is your above vid by Boney M (A VERSION)
> Herewith is the ORIGINAL circa 1969 by the Melodians....Rivers of Babylon is actually PSALM 137 verse 1......Enjoy Hossy
> 
> 
> I would also like to share with you friend a Reggae rendition of PSALM 23 which I feel suits you very well indeed....You Are A Good Man Hoss
> 
> 
> 
> And to round off this Biblical Trilogy .....The 1965 Original of River Jordan,by The Basses with the Soul Vendors(Lynn Taitt and the Jets)
> 
> Steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN OFF TOPIC DEFLECTION AND DERAILMENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all just sharing beautiful Bible inspired Music..........what you loath is that I get on openly with Hoss and although on differing sides at time,I respect him..........I love a lot of folk because they inspire,......everything you are NOT,I'm sorry to say......You are always rude and slandering towards Penny,Tinnie and all the Greats on here.......but they are nice.....me I expose you for the RAMPANT IDIOT YOU ARE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR you goad and incite all the time so you can go crawling to the mods and get other posters kicked of the board. We can tell when you are doing this as we start to get messages about our posts that tell the truth about the LIES you post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you look in the MIRROR all the time and speak about yourself thus ????????
Click to expand...







 Dont give up the day job. as you will never make it as an entertainer. Still no words of support from anyone else on here showing that you are out on a limb. How many times are you caught out LYING and then deny that you LIED.   You are a LOSER in every respect and should be in a mental health hospital being treated for your inadequacies


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenal and Steve...please get on topic and take the other stuff to the Flame Zone..ok?









 This is what happens when the likes of him are protected, and the innocent parties get the blame. He is constantly going of topic and needs to be reeled in, he deliberately incites others and then runs to you complaining. Instaed of clamping down hard you let him goad and lie until you have this situation.


----------



## yiostheoy

Coyote said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> When I visited Israel myself I did an extensive study of the recreation of The Jewish State.
> 
> The best starting point is the end of the 2nd Temple Period when due to rebellion at Jerusalem the Romans sacked and destroyed it and murdered all the residents.  By then the "Christian Jews" had already left, according to Eusebius.
> 
> From that point on the Jews were a people without a nation, for the next 2000 years.
> 
> By 1917 the Jews has the financial and political strength to claim their ancient lands back, and by then the Turkish Ottoman Empire was weak enough that mandating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine was first feasible.
> 
> From 1917 to 1948 immigration was at first a trickle, but then after WW2 it was a torrent.
> 
> Long story short, the Jews regained their ancient homeland at the expense of the occupants who were by then Palestinian Muslims.
> 
> So be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simplified the way I look at it.
> 
> It's about human beings.
> 
> People who are trying to live their lives, raise families, create a future.  It's that simple.  Those people are called Jews and Palestinians, and they deserve the same respect and recognition as any other people.  It does not matter what happened a century or millinium ago.  Who cares who was "first" or "indiginous" or whatever.  What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.
Click to expand...

Although however when two peoples claim title to a land, usually a title search is in order.

The original Canaanite inhabitants which were Egyptian satellites were wiped out by the Hebrews who came out of Egypt.

The subsequent Palestinians and Jews moved into the land, the P's from Joppa and the J's from Jordan.

I think they need to split it now somehow.  Because it looks like they don't want to live in peace with each other.

The P's seem to be the more violent and they are funded from Iran.

That $400 million that BHO just gave to Iran is going to end up buying more guns and ammo for the P's very soon.  I can't believe BHO and Kerry did it.

Having said that, the Israeli's better brace themselves.

I'm sure Netanyahu will be glad when BHO is out of office, no matter who takes over The White House.


----------



## Phoenall

gt1085 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've simplified the way I look at it.
> 
> It's about human beings.
> 
> People who are trying to live their lives, raise families, create a future.  It's that simple.  Those people are called Jews and Palestinians, and they deserve the same respect and recognition as any other people.  It does not matter what happened a century or millinium ago.  Who cares who was "first" or "indiginous" or whatever.  What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That said, the reason why it keeps coming up is because Team Palestine uses it to negate the rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew-ish is not a people or tribe.So israelis lied.
Click to expand...







 And niether is black, so what does this make you ?


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've simplified the way I look at it.
> 
> It's about human beings.
> 
> People who are trying to live their lives, raise families, create a future.  It's that simple.  Those people are called Jews and Palestinians, and they deserve the same respect and recognition as any other people.  It does not matter what happened a century or millinium ago.  Who cares who was "first" or "indiginous" or whatever.  What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That said, the reason why it keeps coming up is because Team Palestine uses it to negate the rights of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...


And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.


----------



## Coyote

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
Click to expand...


No Palestinians either.


----------



## Coyote

It appears that some folks ignore more gentle warnings, so I'm going to say this in my moderator voice.

*Get back on topic.  Take the personal food fights over the Flame Zone or there will be thread bannings and/or infractions.*


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.



I disagree.  

Yes, some members of Team Israel do discuss the invention of the Palestinians, as I have myself, and some question the cultural differentiations between that culture and nearby cultures, as I have myself, but the context is typically not rejecting that the Palestinians exist, or that a Palestinian nation must not exist.  Team Israel, and I can't think of exceptions on this board, is overwhelmingly pro-Two State Solution (actually four State solution, but whatever).  Most of the discussions concerning the Palestinians lack of rights to a nation are related to their preparedness to both govern and to live at peace with Israel.  Its not an existential fight for the Palestinians.  

Team Palestine, on the other hand, argues regularly and insistently that the Jewish people are not a people, an ethnicity or a culture and have no rights to BE a nation.  They argue that there is no such thing as the Jewish people.  They argue for ethnic cleansing -- not to secure peace -- but because the Jewish people have no rights and therefore ethnically cleansing them is not a violation of human rights.  They argue for exclusive use of the Holy Places and the entire territory -- not to secure peace -- but because the Jewish people do not qualify for any of it.  Some of them repeat anti-semitic libels and lies on a regular basis in thread after thread after thread in order to demonize and dehumanize Jews.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Yes, some members of Team Israel do discuss the invention of the Palestinians, as I have myself, and some question the cultural differentiations between that culture and nearby cultures, as I have myself, but the context is typically not rejecting that the Palestinians exist, or that a Palestinian nation must not exist.  Team Israel, and I can't think of exceptions on this board, is overwhelmingly pro-Two State Solution (actually four State solution, but whatever).  Most of the discussions concerning the Palestinians lack of rights to a nation are related to their preparedness to both govern and to live at peace with Israel.  Its not an existential fight for the Palestinians.
> 
> Team Palestine, on the other hand, argues regularly and insistently that the Jewish people are not a people, an ethnicity or a culture and have no rights to BE a nation.  They argue that there is no such thing as the Jewish people.  They argue for ethnic cleansing -- not to secure peace -- but because the Jewish people have no rights and therefore ethnically cleansing them is not a violation of human rights.  They argue for exclusive use of the Holy Places and the entire territory -- not to secure peace -- but because the Jewish people do not qualify for any of it.  Some of them repeat anti-semitic libels and lies on a regular basis in thread after thread after thread in order to demonize and dehumanize Jews.
Click to expand...



There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.

There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.



Again, I disagree.  There is some. Team Israel is not all angels and goodness and light.  I do try to call it out when I see it.  

But just looking at the threads and OPs on the I/P board -- I can see one which denies the existence of the Temple; several which are outright lies about Israel; one which accuses Israel of apartheid for a silly reason and two which were dragged up from obscure opinion sites with vague accusations and no links or facts.  On the other side -- I see a few about Palestine with good links from news sources stating facts and quotes from sources.  



> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.



There we agree.  Very few people look into the complexities of the issues and search for ways to solve the conflict.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I disagree.  There is some. Team Israel is not all angels and goodness and light.  I do try to call it out when I see it.
> 
> But just looking at the threads and OPs on the I/P board -- I can see one which denies the existence of the Temple; several which are outright lies about Israel; one which accuses Israel of apartheid for a silly reason and two which were dragged up from obscure opinion sites with vague accusations and no links or facts.  On the other side -- I see a few about Palestine with good links from news sources stating facts and quotes from sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There we agree.  Very few people look into the complexities of the issues and search for ways to solve the conflict.
Click to expand...


I see a lot of trollish threads from a very few people (as a matter of fact, one person in particular seems rather over-represented) that is what I'm seeing.  And a few good threads with good topics.  But I'm seeing crap coming from both teams and the impression I get is that the goal is to demonize one side or the other.  For example a thread on a "Palestinian contribution to mankind" which is anything but, one on "lets deal with documented facts" which is completely one-side and debatably "factual" and a repetitive topic with the op.  You, Rocco, Tinmore, Daniyel, seem to be the ones more willing to get into issues over sound bites - but I think we live in a sound bite world unfortunately.


----------



## theliq

No Shusa,it was yourside that DEMONIZED,MURDERED,and exsile the Palestinian People to gain their land Ilegally ,then said to following generations THAT NO ONE HAD LIVED THERE BEFORE....need I go on,I think I will keep to the sound bite here,hate for Coyote to think I was having a discussion,heaven forbid


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've simplified the way I look at it.
> 
> It's about human beings.
> 
> People who are trying to live their lives, raise families, create a future.  It's that simple.  Those people are called Jews and Palestinians, and they deserve the same respect and recognition as any other people.  It does not matter what happened a century or millinium ago.  Who cares who was "first" or "indiginous" or whatever.  What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That said, the reason why it keeps coming up is because Team Palestine uses it to negate the rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.
Click to expand...







 What rights and can you give a link that shows this to be true. Otherwise your claim is just outright anti semitism, religious intolerance and incitement to racism.


 If there was any evidence of this the Jews would have been dragged to the Hague and al charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.


----------



## Divine Wind

Coyote said:


> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.


The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.  

That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.

Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".


----------



## Phoenall

yiostheoy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> When I visited Israel myself I did an extensive study of the recreation of The Jewish State.
> 
> The best starting point is the end of the 2nd Temple Period when due to rebellion at Jerusalem the Romans sacked and destroyed it and murdered all the residents.  By then the "Christian Jews" had already left, according to Eusebius.
> 
> From that point on the Jews were a people without a nation, for the next 2000 years.
> 
> By 1917 the Jews has the financial and political strength to claim their ancient lands back, and by then the Turkish Ottoman Empire was weak enough that mandating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine was first feasible.
> 
> From 1917 to 1948 immigration was at first a trickle, but then after WW2 it was a torrent.
> 
> Long story short, the Jews regained their ancient homeland at the expense of the occupants who were by then Palestinian Muslims.
> 
> So be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've simplified the way I look at it.
> 
> It's about human beings.
> 
> People who are trying to live their lives, raise families, create a future.  It's that simple.  Those people are called Jews and Palestinians, and they deserve the same respect and recognition as any other people.  It does not matter what happened a century or millinium ago.  Who cares who was "first" or "indiginous" or whatever.  What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although however when two peoples claim title to a land, usually a title search is in order.
> 
> The original Canaanite inhabitants which were Egyptian satellites were wiped out by the Hebrews who came out of Egypt.
> 
> The subsequent Palestinians and Jews moved into the land, the P's from Joppa and the J's from Jordan.
> 
> I think they need to split it now somehow.  Because it looks like they don't want to live in peace with each other.
> 
> The P's seem to be the more violent and they are funded from Iran.
> 
> That $400 million that BHO just gave to Iran is going to end up buying more guns and ammo for the P's very soon.  I can't believe BHO and Kerry did it.
> 
> Having said that, the Israeli's better brace themselves.
> 
> I'm sure Netanyahu will be glad when BHO is out of office, no matter who takes over The White House.
Click to expand...








 It was split in 1923 into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home, if it is to be split further than it must be from trans jordan as the Jews lands are getting smaller and smaler. Why not just enforce the 1923 international law embodied in the international treaties of 1917, 1921, 1923 and 1924 and evict the illegal squatters from the Jewish national home. I still cant figure out why the part of the international laws that allowed the arab muslims to evict the Jews from their lands were enforced by the UN and International courts and not the parts that allowed the Jews to evist the non Jews from the Jewish national home.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Palestinians either.
Click to expand...






 Want to bet, as some of the "palestinians" captured by Israel in the many wars have been pakistani's, afghani's and bangla deshi's


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> No Shusa,it was yourside that DEMONIZED,MURDERED,and exsile the Palestinian People to gain their land Ilegally ,then said to following generations THAT NO ONE HAD LIVED THERE BEFORE....need I go on,I think I will keep to the sound bite here,hate for Coyote to think I was having a discussion,heaven forbid








 And I am still waiting for you to produce the evidence that the LoN granted the land to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians.

The evidence of Western journalists travelling through palestine in the 19C all says that there were few places that had a human presence. That most of the villages were Jewish with the occasional arab tent village. The ottoman census results show that the Jews were in the majority, and the early British results show the same thing. All you produce is the links that support the islamicf version of history as if they are the only evidence available.

 Over the last 100 years the arab muslims have attempted to wipe out the Jews in palestine/Israel and failed in the process. The evidence shows that the arab muslims invaded palestine with the intention of mass murdering the Jews and were put out when the Jews turned on them. 

You constantly deny the Jews their rights to their lands granted under international treaty and international laws in 1923, the same laws and treaties that granted the arab muslims Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt and Turkey. So if you deny the Jews their rights then you are denying the arab muslm theirs as well.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Shusa,it was yourside that DEMONIZED,MURDERED,and exsile the Palestinian People to gain their land Ilegally ,then said to following generations THAT NO ONE HAD LIVED THERE BEFORE....need I go on,I think I will keep to the sound bite here,hate for Coyote to think I was having a discussion,heaven forbid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to produce the evidence that the LoN granted the land to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians.
> 
> The evidence of Western journalists travelling through palestine in the 19C all says that there were few places that had a human presence. That most of the villages were Jewish with the occasional arab tent village. The ottoman census results show that the Jews were in the majority, and the early British results show the same thing. All you produce is the links that support the islamicf version of history as if they are the only evidence available.
> 
> Over the last 100 years the arab muslims have attempted to wipe out the Jews in palestine/Israel and failed in the process. The evidence shows that the arab muslims invaded palestine with the intention of mass murdering the Jews and were put out when the Jews turned on them.
> 
> You constantly deny the Jews their rights to their lands granted under international treaty and international laws in 1923, the same laws and treaties that granted the arab muslims Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt and Turkey. So if you deny the Jews their rights then you are denying the arab muslm theirs as well.
Click to expand...

The LoN had no authority to grant rights to anyone. Rights are not granted. They are recognized by international law. The people stay with their territory without regard to the political status of that territory.

The Treaty of Lausanne echoed that principle as did the Palestinian citizenship order. Even the never implemented Resolution181 stated that all Palestinians who normally live in the territory that would become the Jewish state would be citizens of that state.

The people of the place cannot be separated from their place.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Yes, some members of Team Israel do discuss the invention of the Palestinians, as I have myself, and some question the cultural differentiations between that culture and nearby cultures, as I have myself, but the context is typically not rejecting that the Palestinians exist, or that a Palestinian nation must not exist.  Team Israel, and I can't think of exceptions on this board, is overwhelmingly pro-Two State Solution (actually four State solution, but whatever).  Most of the discussions concerning the Palestinians lack of rights to a nation are related to their preparedness to both govern and to live at peace with Israel.  Its not an existential fight for the Palestinians.
> 
> Team Palestine, on the other hand, argues regularly and insistently that the Jewish people are not a people, an ethnicity or a culture and have no rights to BE a nation.  They argue that there is no such thing as the Jewish people.  They argue for ethnic cleansing -- not to secure peace -- but because the Jewish people have no rights and therefore ethnically cleansing them is not a violation of human rights.  They argue for exclusive use of the Holy Places and the entire territory -- not to secure peace -- but because the Jewish people do not qualify for any of it.  Some of them repeat anti-semitic libels and lies on a regular basis in thread after thread after thread in order to demonize and dehumanize Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
Click to expand...





 And then the majority argue that INTERNATIONAL LAWS should be enforced for all parties and the aspects of those laws already enforced to the benefit of the arab muslims should be enforced for the benefit of the Jews. But as soon as those aspects are broached you deny their existence because it would mean the arab muslims moving out of Israel and going back where they originally came from. Then you want " do overs" when the arab muslims are defeated in every fight they start with the arab muslims given every new weapon to unleash on the Jews. They had their chance in 1917 and refused to accept it, again in 1921, 1923, 1924, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1945, 1947, 1949, 1967, 1973, 1988, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2014. Why should we keep giving them more and more chances when they refuse to accept them unless they have the genocide of the Jews and the destruction of Israel as their major aspect. Read their charters and see what their aims are, and they have lodged these with the UN as being sacrosacnt. If the UN had any backbone they would have held an emergency meetting without any islamic nations being present and raised a multinational force to eliminate the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians from the area. They have their own lands called trans Jordan and that is where they should be living, not in Israel that was never their lands anyway. You ignore International law at your peril because in a few short years the arab muslims will be knocking on your door claiming the bathroom window they can see was their bedroom in 2000 before you stole the building from them. Keep pushing the arab muslim propaganda and soon you will be fighting against what you are "defending" now and there will be no one to come to your aid.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Shusa,it was yourside that DEMONIZED,MURDERED,and exsile the Palestinian People to gain their land Ilegally ,then said to following generations THAT NO ONE HAD LIVED THERE BEFORE....need I go on,I think I will keep to the sound bite here,hate for Coyote to think I was having a discussion,heaven forbid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to produce the evidence that the LoN granted the land to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians.
> 
> The evidence of Western journalists travelling through palestine in the 19C all says that there were few places that had a human presence. That most of the villages were Jewish with the occasional arab tent village. The ottoman census results show that the Jews were in the majority, and the early British results show the same thing. All you produce is the links that support the islamicf version of history as if they are the only evidence available.
> 
> Over the last 100 years the arab muslims have attempted to wipe out the Jews in palestine/Israel and failed in the process. The evidence shows that the arab muslims invaded palestine with the intention of mass murdering the Jews and were put out when the Jews turned on them.
> 
> You constantly deny the Jews their rights to their lands granted under international treaty and international laws in 1923, the same laws and treaties that granted the arab muslims Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Saudi, Yemen, Egypt and Turkey. So if you deny the Jews their rights then you are denying the arab muslm theirs as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The LoN had no authority to grant rights to anyone. Rights are not granted. They are recognized by international law. The people stay with their territory without regard to the political status of that territory.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne echoed that principle as did the Palestinian citizenship order. Even the never implemented Resolution181 stated that all Palestinians who normally live in the territory that would become the Jewish state would be citizens of that state.
> 
> The people of the place cannot be separated from their place.
Click to expand...







 Are you 100% sure you want to run with that claim, because if you are then you are saying that not one of the islamic nations on the former Ottoman Empire lands exists. The LoN charter that you use against the Jews does not exist and the lands are still under the control of the Allies. The UN does not exist as that was invented on the back of the LoN and  its resolutions are no longer in existence.


 Rights are granted through international law, and dont exist until that time. Unless you want them to be used against the founding fathers invasion, colonisation and land theft of the Americas. If the people stay with their territory then the arab muslims must give up Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Hebron and all the other places that were Jewish before the arab muslims stole them.

Resolution 181 does not exist according to your opening sentence, so you cant use is as an argument unless you are being two faced and denying the Jews their rights under international law. This is something that you do every day because you cant argue your case from an intelligent standpoint so resort to immature and stupid sound bites


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The people of the place cannot be separated from their place.



Of course they can.  Its called ethnic cleansing.  Or population transfers.  Happened a lot after WWII.  In a lot of different places.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the place cannot be separated from their place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can.  Its called ethnic cleansing.  Or population transfers.  Happened a lot after WWII.  In a lot of different places.
Click to expand...






 It also happens a lot in nations taken over by muslims, like the former Yugoslavia and gaza.  Since 2007 the arab muslims in gaza have ethnically cleansed 90% of the Christian population and found they could not blame it on the Jews.


----------



## theliq

Divine.Wind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.
> 
> That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.
> 
> Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".
Click to expand...


sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.
> 
> That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.
> 
> Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
Click to expand...







 Still pushing your anti semitic Jew hatred. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs, They have never been one people because of the concept of islam, and have only one thing in common islamonazi mentallity.

 The Jews are a proven seperate race that has no genetic links to the arab muslims other than that of the human Genome. The arab muslims you hero worship come from all of the islamic world just to fight the Jews and get beaten every time. 

 ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR HATE SITES AND PROPAGANDA THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT MOST OF YOUR CLAIMS


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.
> 
> That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.
> 
> Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still pushing your anti semitic Jew hatred. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs, They have never been one people because of the concept of islam, and have only one thing in common islamonazi mentallity.
> 
> The Jews are a proven seperate race that has no genetic links to the arab muslims other than that of the human Genome. The arab muslims you hero worship come from all of the islamic world just to fight the Jews and get beaten every time.
> 
> ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR HATE SITES AND PROPAGANDA THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT MOST OF YOUR CLAIMS
Click to expand...

palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs,​
Just like the US.


----------



## Divine Wind

theliq said:


> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.


What race are the Palestinians?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.
> 
> That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.
> 
> Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still pushing your anti semitic Jew hatred. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs, They have never been one people because of the concept of islam, and have only one thing in common islamonazi mentallity.
> 
> The Jews are a proven seperate race that has no genetic links to the arab muslims other than that of the human Genome. The arab muslims you hero worship come from all of the islamic world just to fight the Jews and get beaten every time.
> 
> ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR HATE SITES AND PROPAGANDA THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT MOST OF YOUR CLAIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs,​
> Just like the US.
Click to expand...





 Yes just like the US, only the US does not have the state sponsored terrorism, the national ideal of violence rules all and the national religion of islam. So the comparison ends on the mixing of races.


----------



## Phoenall

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What race are the Palestinians?
Click to expand...






Nobody knows as the blood is that mixed by the massive influx of illegal migrants from the 1920's on


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.



Yet another poster who insists that the universal and inalienable rights which belong to all people don't belong to the Jewish people because the Jewish people don't "count" -- are not a people, a race, a culture, an ethnicity.

So, again, I ask:  by what criteria do you determine this?  What makes Palestinians a "race" (people, culture, ethnicity) and deserving of self-determination and a nation?


----------



## Divine Wind

Phoenall said:


> Nobody knows as the blood is that mixed by the massive influx of illegal migrants from the 1920's on


$1000 says it's within 0.1% of everyone else's DNA. 

DNA survey finds all humans are 99.9pc the same
_Although scientists have long recognised that, despite physical differences, all human populations are genetically similar, the new work concludes that populations from different parts of the world share even more genetic similarities than previously assumed.

*All humans are 99.9 per cent identical and, of that tiny 0.1 per cent difference, 94 per cent of the variation is among individuals from the same populations and only six per cent between individuals from different populations.*

Nonetheless, the team found that tiny differences in DNA can provide enough information to identify the geographic ancestry of individual men and women.

The results of the study, published today in the journal Science, have implications for understanding ancient human migrations and for resolving an ongoing debate about the use of family histories in medical research, said Prof Marcus Feldman of Stanford University who led the team._

_The team analysed DNA from 1,056 people from 52 populations in five major geographic regions of the world: Africa, Eurasia (Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia), East Asia, Oceania and the Americas.

To identify specific populations, the research team looked for 377 "microsatellites" - short segments of human DNA that occur in specific patterns, which are passed down from generation to generation.

"Each microsatellite had between four and 32 distinct types," Prof Feldman said. "Most were found in people from several continents, suggesting that only a tiny fraction of genetic traits are distinctive to specific populations. This means that visible differences between human groups - such as skin colour and skull shape - result from differences in a very small proportion of genetic traits."

Using powerful statistical techniques that use many independent genes it was possible to pinpoint the ancestral continent of virtually every individual from Africa, East Asia, Oceania and the Americas.

People from Eurasia - which includes Europe, the Middle East and Central/South Asia - were among the most difficult to assign ancestries, Prof Feldman noted, due to a "complex history of migrations, conquests and trade over the past few thousand years."
_


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What race are the Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows as the blood is that mixed by the massive influx of illegal migrants from the 1920's on
Click to expand...


Why is this even a topic of conversation? No one discusses the right of Great Britain, the USA, to exist.

It's just another  meandering way of not recognising the state of Israel.


----------



## Divine Wind

Mindful said:


> Why is this even a topic of conversation? No one discusses the right Great Britain, the USA, to exist.
> 
> It's just another  meandering way of not recognising the state of Israel.


Agreed.  In many ways I see the defense of the Palestinians over and above Israel as to be akin to the KKK and White Supremacists when they switch from attacking blacks as inferior to supporting "White Heritage" and "White Power".   Same shit, different cover story.

In this case, it's just a way to hide antisemitism.


----------



## Shusha

Mindful said:


> Why is this even a topic of conversation? No one discusses the right of Great Britain, the USA, to exist.



What other people in the world is demonized and vilified for wanting self-determination and a nation?  What other people is called by two names -- one for the "good" ones who are content to live under foreign rule and one for the "bad" ones who want self-determination and a nation?  Are there "good" Scots and "bad" Scots?  Do we have a special name for the "bad" Scots?


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.



Here's another thought as to why I think you are wrong.  Or why the two sides are not equivalent in their thinking on this.  

The Jewish rights to part of that territory arise from their indigeniety -- their origins in that place, the preservation of their unique culture both in that place and in the diaspora.  The Jewish rights arise from the idea that invasion, conquest, exile, ethnic cleansing and genocide do not remove universal and inalienable rights from a people.  

The Palestinian rights do not arise from their indigeniety.  They arise from an acknowledgment that a thousand years of history can not be unmade.  (It would be ridiculous to send everyone but the First Nations peoples of all the Americas back to their countries of origin).

This does not mean that Palestinians rights are negated.  It just means they come from another place.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another poster who insists that the universal and inalienable rights which belong to all people don't belong to the Jewish people because the Jewish people don't "count" -- are not a people, a race, a culture, an ethnicity.
> 
> So, again, I ask:  by what criteria do you determine this?  What makes Palestinians a "race" (people, culture, ethnicity) and deserving of self-determination and a nation?
Click to expand...

You keep trying to make this a race/religion thing. It is not. That is why you are confused.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another thought as to why I think you are wrong.  Or why the two sides are not equivalent in their thinking on this.
> 
> The Jewish rights to part of that territory arise from their indigeniety -- their origins in that place, the preservation of their unique culture both in that place and in the diaspora.  The Jewish rights arise from the idea that invasion, conquest, exile, ethnic cleansing and genocide do not remove universal and inalienable rights from a people.
> 
> The Palestinian rights do not arise from their indigeniety.  They arise from an acknowledgment that a thousand years of history can not be unmade.  (It would be ridiculous to send everyone but the First Nations peoples of all the Americas back to their countries of origin).
> 
> This does not mean that Palestinians rights are negated.  It just means they come from another place.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I am seeing get a distinction  here.  For one thing, I do not agree with you on indiginuity.  I consider both to be indiginous or first nations, mixed with a lot of immigrants. 

For another, when Team Israel negates Palestinian rights, they do so on the basis of indiginous rights and they recognize no other rights as equivalent.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You keep trying to make this a race/religion thing. It is not. That is why you are confused.



I am not the slightest bit confused.  My arguments are internally consistent and give recognition to BOTH the Jewish people and the Palestinian people.  (And also the First Nations peoples of the Americas, the Catalans, the Kurds, the Tibetans, the West Saharans, the Cypriots, the Quebecois, the Scots and anyone else self-identifying as a distinct group seeking national self-determination.)  My criteria are broad and inclusive as well a practical and solution-oriented.  My arguments seek to  encourage nationalistic self-determination and deny it to no one.  

The arguments presented by Team Palestine are internally inconsistent and specifically single out the Jewish people as being excluded from what I consider to be universal and inalienable rights.  They bring up race, religion, ethnicity, culture, etc as a valid basis for sovereignty and national self-determination but then deny the Jewish people are any of those things in an effort to prevent rights from applying to the Jewish people.  But they have no consistent criteria which they apply consistently and universally.

My argument with them concerns this inconsistency -- which I view as stemming from a very basic anti-semitism -- the idea that Jews can be or should be treated differently than others.
.  

Now, having said all that, you are a bit of an anomaly on Team Palestine in that you may very well have an entirely different measure for who has those universal and inalienable rights you keep bringing up.  You may not tie it to a group of people who have a similar aspirations and only tie it to individuals.  If I am correct about your argument, you will say that the "people of the place" have those rights and that the "people of the place" are those who were residents of Palestine in August of 1925 and thus became citizens of 'Palestine'.  (I think your argument is legally faulty, but at least its consistent and makes a weird sort of sense).  

What I don't get about your argument is why Palestine can't be split (AGAIN!) between the two very different groups of people who were the residents of the time and are residents now.  What I don't get is why you don't get on board with at two State solution (actually four) to accommodate these two very different groups.  I think you are going to say that immigrants have no rights to upset the sovereignty of another territory or group of people.  And where that is problematic in terms of the consistency of your argument is how you relate that to the peoples of the Americas -- who would have NO rights to the place.  

Now, I know that you are going to say that the rules changed, in terms of international law, between the 1700's and 1925 and thus what the Europeans did to the Americas was legal but it was not legal in 1925 when the Jews did it.  That strikes me as a moral cheat.  You are playing Rules Sheriff because it suits you and not because you've built a solid, consistent, moral argument.  (And again, I think your argument is legally faulty).  

Further, I would challenge you on your moral or legal argument as it pertains to whether or not people in diaspora have any continued rights to their place of origin.  I would want to know if the reasons for a diaspora are relevant to your argument (genocide, ethnic cleansing, exile as opposed to voluntary emigration, for example).  And I would want to know who has the right to determine the status or rights of diaspora individuals.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> I'm not sure I am seeing get a distinction  here.  For one thing, I do not agree with you on indiginuity.  I consider both to be indiginous or first nations, mixed with a lot of immigrants.



They can't both be first nations.  First Nations, by definition, are those who have not adopted the culture of invading or conquering peoples.  First Nations are those who were there before conquests and invasions.   Whose culture arose in that place. This does not mean that those who have adopted the culture of the invading or conquering peoples have no rights -- just that their rights don't arise from being First Nations.  The whole, entire point of identifying First Nations peoples is to provide them with protection against stronger, invading and conquering forces.  



> For another, when Team Israel negates Palestinian rights, they do so on the basis of indiginous rights and they recognize no other rights as equivalent.



Well, I don't see Team Israel negating Palestinian rights.  I think they argue against indigeneity (as I do), but those are not equivalent.  As I am trying to point out.  But there is no need for them to be equivalent.  There is no harm done for them BOTH to have rights, even if those rights arise from different sources.  And I think Team Israel is, without exception, in agreement that BOTH Israel and Palestinians have rights to their own national self-determination and some sort of sovereignty.  The primary argument that Team Israel makes is not that Palestinians have no rights -- but that they are (currently) incapable of exercising those rights.  

Which is a chasm of difference to the Team Palestine argument that the "Zionists" (read: Jews) have no rights.  


If I was to "sum up" the positions of the Teams now that I've been here a year or so, I would frame it this way:

Team Palestine:  The Jewish people have no rights because they are not really a people.

Team Israel:  The Palestinians are behaving badly and until their behaviour improves they are incapable of governing a nation.


----------



## abu afak

Divine.Wind said:


> $1000 says it's within 0.1% of everyone else's DNA.
> DNA survey finds all humans are 99.9pc the same
> _Although scientists have long recognised that, despite physical differences, all human populations are genetically similar, the new work concludes that populations from different parts of the world share even more genetic similarities than previously assumed.
> *All humans are 99.9 per cent identical and, of that tiny 0.1 per cent difference, 94 per cent of the variation is among individuals from the same populations and only six per cent between individuals from different populations.*
> Nonetheless, the team found that tiny differences in DNA can provide enough information to identify the geographic ancestry of individual men and women._
> ....


I'll save you some money Wind boy.
The Human Genome Project in 2000 was the source of that "99.9%" Error, and they corrected it in 2007.
(after your 2002 obsolete article).
Venter and co, in 2007, retested, including his Own DNA, and found the difference was "Over Seven times as great" as they originally thought.

*Finding said to show “race isn’t real” scrapped
Sept. 3, 2007
Special to World Science 
*
*A renowned scientist has backed off a finding that he, joined by others, long touted as evidence for what they called a proven fact: that racial differences among people are imaginary.

That idea—entrenched today in academia, and often used to castigate scholars who study race—has drawn much of its scientific backing from a finding that all people are 99.9% genetically alike.*

*But geneticist Craig Venter, head of a research team that reported that figure in 2001, backed off it in an announcement this week. He said human variation now turns out to be Over Seven times greater than was thought, though he’s not changing his position on race.
[........]
The findings reveal “human-to-human variation is more than SEVEN-fold greater than earlier estimates, proving that we are in fact very unique individuals at the genetic level,” Venter said. 

The 99.9% figure might need to be lowered to about 99%, he added. 
The findings are to appear in the October issue of the online research journal PLoS Biology. Venter added that the cost of sequencing an individual person’s genome is rapidly dropping, and that a decade from now, “thousands or tens of thousands” will have their DNA code written out.....*​*
*
Of course, Chimps are 98.6% the same, so 99% is about 2/3 of the distance we have from another Species.
Plenty of room for Huge human group difference/Race/Subspecies.

I also suggest you Google the term '_Lewontins Fallacy_'.
This is a specialty of mine, and... uh...
You can just PayPal me $500: Half what you Offered/owe.
_noblesse oblige_
`


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another poster who insists that the universal and inalienable rights which belong to all people don't belong to the Jewish people because the Jewish people don't "count" -- are not a people, a race, a culture, an ethnicity.
> 
> So, again, I ask:  by what criteria do you determine this?  What makes Palestinians a "race" (people, culture, ethnicity) and deserving of self-determination and a nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep trying to make this a race/religion thing. It is not. That is why you are confused.
Click to expand...







 No it isnt as that is the basis the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians use. Read their national charter and see how many time their religion is invoked in their thrteats against the Jews and Christians.

 It is you that is confused due to your stupidity in denying the truth.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another thought as to why I think you are wrong.  Or why the two sides are not equivalent in their thinking on this.
> 
> The Jewish rights to part of that territory arise from their indigeniety -- their origins in that place, the preservation of their unique culture both in that place and in the diaspora.  The Jewish rights arise from the idea that invasion, conquest, exile, ethnic cleansing and genocide do not remove universal and inalienable rights from a people.
> 
> The Palestinian rights do not arise from their indigeniety.  They arise from an acknowledgment that a thousand years of history can not be unmade.  (It would be ridiculous to send everyone but the First Nations peoples of all the Americas back to their countries of origin).
> 
> This does not mean that Palestinians rights are negated.  It just means they come from another place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I am seeing get a distinction  here.  For one thing, I do not agree with you on indiginuity.  I consider both to be indiginous or first nations, mixed with a lot of immigrants.
> 
> For another, when Team Israel negates Palestinian rights, they do so on the basis of indiginous rights and they recognize no other rights as equivalent.
Click to expand...







 So how can people who arrived in palestine between 1920 and 1948 uninvited and illegally be indigenous. The UN let the cat out of the bag when it had to create a whole new regime of refugee because the arab muslims did not meet the existing criteria. They brought in the two year rule to try and rig the situation and found that so many had not even been there for 2 years. This meant that a whole new refugee status for just the arab muslim illegal immigrants had to be created and it is called UNWRA. They now have over 6 million refugees on their books when the original numbers were 300,000, even though the original remit of the UN was to find permanent homes for the refugees none have accepted citizenship of their new nation of residence. The arab muslims are milking the refugee status for all it is worth and the UN should be forcing them to stand on their own feet after 3 years as a refugee. Every other refugee group finds a new life within 3 years so why are the arab muslims allowed to make propaganda out of their self imposed plight


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Team Israel uses it to negate the rights of Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another thought as to why I think you are wrong.  Or why the two sides are not equivalent in their thinking on this.
> 
> The Jewish rights to part of that territory arise from their indigeniety -- their origins in that place, the preservation of their unique culture both in that place and in the diaspora.  The Jewish rights arise from the idea that invasion, conquest, exile, ethnic cleansing and genocide do not remove universal and inalienable rights from a people.
> 
> The Palestinian rights do not arise from their indigeniety.  They arise from an acknowledgment that a thousand years of history can not be unmade.  (It would be ridiculous to send everyone but the First Nations peoples of all the Americas back to their countries of origin).
> 
> This does not mean that Palestinians rights are negated.  It just means they come from another place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I am seeing get a distinction  here.  For one thing, I do not agree with you on indiginuity.  I consider both to be indiginous or first nations, mixed with a lot of immigrants.
> 
> For another, when Team Israel negates Palestinian rights, they do so on the basis of indiginous rights and they recognize no other rights as equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how can people who arrived in palestine between 1920 and 1948 uninvited and illegally be indigenous. The UN let the cat out of the bag when it had to create a whole new regime of refugee because the arab muslims did not meet the existing criteria. They brought in the two year rule to try and rig the situation and found that so many had not even been there for 2 years. This meant that a whole new refugee status for just the arab muslim illegal immigrants had to be created and it is called UNWRA. They now have over 6 million refugees on their books when the original numbers were 300,000, even though the original remit of the UN was to find permanent homes for the refugees none have accepted citizenship of their new nation of residence. The arab muslims are milking the refugee status for all it is worth and the UN should be forcing them to stand on their own feet after 3 years as a refugee. Every other refugee group finds a new life within 3 years so why are the arab muslims allowed to make propaganda out of their self imposed plight
Click to expand...









The biggest argument against partitioning Israel any further to placate the arab muslims is that of the arab muslims themselves. They refused point blank to have anything to do with the creation of a non muslim nation in the former Ottoman empire from 1917 right up until 1988, and then only paid lip service to the acceptance of a solution. Their own charter spells it out that they will never accept Israel as a nation in palestine, and will try and destroy it so the land can become just another islamonazi hellhole. Time for the world to stand up to the muslims and tell them any more violence and they will face sanctions from the whole world, including blocking travel outside of islamic nations


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.
> 
> That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.
> 
> Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still pushing your anti semitic Jew hatred. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs, They have never been one people because of the concept of islam, and have only one thing in common islamonazi mentallity.
> 
> The Jews are a proven seperate race that has no genetic links to the arab muslims other than that of the human Genome. The arab muslims you hero worship come from all of the islamic world just to fight the Jews and get beaten every time.
> 
> ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR HATE SITES AND PROPAGANDA THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT MOST OF YOUR CLAIMS
Click to expand...

 The Jews are NOT a RACE anymore as I have explained clearly to you


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.
> 
> That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.
> 
> Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still pushing your anti semitic Jew hatred. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs, They have never been one people because of the concept of islam, and have only one thing in common islamonazi mentallity.
> 
> The Jews are a proven seperate race that has no genetic links to the arab muslims other than that of the human Genome. The arab muslims you hero worship come from all of the islamic world just to fight the Jews and get beaten every time.
> 
> ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR HATE SITES AND PROPAGANDA THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT MOST OF YOUR CLAIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews are NOT a RACE anymore as I have explained clearly to you
Click to expand...







 No you have stated your opinion, you have not explained or proved that the Jews are not a race. The only evidence you have is that from the extremist websites that have the genocide of the Jews as their overall aim. The definitive studies have shown that the Jews from Europe, America and Asia all have the same DNA chromosome match with the Jews from the M.E. who never left the land 2000 years ago. The arab muslims claiming to be Palestinians have a completely different DNA to the Jews which is why they refuse to have the test. They know that it will show they are not indigenous to the area and have recently arrived as illegal immigrants.

 The fact that Winston Churchill stood up in Parliament and stated the arab muslims were illegally migrating to Palestine shows that you are trying to hide the truth. At most less than 1% of the worlds Jews are converts because unlike the muslims and Christiansd they don't go touting for people to convert to Judaism.


----------



## Divine Wind

abu afak said:


> ....*The 99.9% figure might need to be lowered to about 99%, he added....*
> `


Might need ≠ needs to be

Thanks for the info.  Do you think "race" exists or not?  Does your expertise say we should still divide people into caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid and aboriginoid racial groups?  What race are Palestinians?  Jews?


----------



## Divine Wind

theliq said:


> The Jews are NOT a RACE anymore as I have explained clearly to you


Neither are the Palestinians as you claimed earlier. 


theliq said:


> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I am seeing get a distinction  here.  For one thing, I do not agree with you on indiginuity.  I consider both to be indiginous or first nations, mixed with a lot of immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't both be first nations.  First Nations, by definition, are those who have not adopted the culture of invading or conquering peoples.  First Nations are those who were there before conquests and invasions.   Whose culture arose in that place. This does not mean that those who have adopted the culture of the invading or conquering peoples have no rights -- just that their rights don't arise from being First Nations.  The whole, entire point of identifying First Nations peoples is to provide them with protection against stronger, invading and conquering forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For another, when Team Israel negates Palestinian rights, they do so on the basis of indiginous rights and they recognize no other rights as equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't see Team Israel negating Palestinian rights.  I think they argue against indigeneity (as I do), but those are not equivalent.  As I am trying to point out.  But there is no need for them to be equivalent.  There is no harm done for them BOTH to have rights, even if those rights arise from different sources.  And I think Team Israel is, without exception, in agreement that BOTH Israel and Palestinians have rights to their own national self-determination and some sort of sovereignty.  The primary argument that Team Israel makes is not that Palestinians have no rights -- but that they are (currently) incapable of exercising those rights.
> 
> Which is a chasm of difference to the Team Palestine argument that the "Zionists" (read: Jews) have no rights.
> 
> 
> If I was to "sum up" the positions of the Teams now that I've been here a year or so, I would frame it this way:
> 
> Team Palestine:  The Jewish people have no rights because they are not really a people.
> 
> Team Israel:  The Palestinians are behaving badly and until their behaviour improves they are incapable of governing a nation.
Click to expand...



I'm pretty sure we hashed this out before vis a vis "first nations" status.  I don't agree that Jews are "first nations", particularly given most left thousands of years ago, meanwhile the Palestinians include people who are descended from the same peoples the Jews are.

Here's my summation:

Team Palestine:  The Jewish people have no rights because they are foreign invaders and not really a people.

Team of a few reasonable people:  The Jewish people have a right to self determination, and a right for their nation to exist and be recognized.  Those rights are based on the fact they have deep cultural ties to the region, and that they have been there for thousands of years.  That right also includes a recognition of and respect for the rights of the indiginous and immigrant Palestinian people and their right to self determination.

Team Israel:  The Palestinians have no rights because they are foreign invaders and not really a people.

Team of a few reasonable people:  The Palestinian people have a right to self determination the right to build their own state.  Those rights are based on the fact they have deep cultural ties to the region, and that they have been there for thousands of years.  That right includes a recognition of and a respect for the rights of the indiginous and immigrant Jewish peoples.  The expression of that right is based on their ability to co-exist peacefully with their neighbors.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I am seeing get a distinction  here.  For one thing, I do not agree with you on indiginuity.  I consider both to be indiginous or first nations, mixed with a lot of immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't both be first nations.  First Nations, by definition, are those who have not adopted the culture of invading or conquering peoples. .
Click to expand...


By that definition, Jews really can't be considered "First Nations".  They've adopted the culture of the people's they immigrated to which is essentially the same thing.  A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.


----------



## Phoenall

Divine.Wind said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....*The 99.9% figure might need to be lowered to about 99%, he added....*
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Might need ≠ needs to be
> 
> Thanks for the info.  Do you think "race" exists or not?  Does your expertise say we should still divide people into caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid and aboriginoid racial groups?  What race are Palestinians?  Jews?
Click to expand...






 The originals were, and the term was used as an insult by firstly the Christians and later the muslims. It was only in the 1960's that the Soviets told arafat to use the name as a means of giving the arab muslims some credibility.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I am seeing get a distinction  here.  For one thing, I do not agree with you on indiginuity.  I consider both to be indiginous or first nations, mixed with a lot of immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't both be first nations.  First Nations, by definition, are those who have not adopted the culture of invading or conquering peoples.  First Nations are those who were there before conquests and invasions.   Whose culture arose in that place. This does not mean that those who have adopted the culture of the invading or conquering peoples have no rights -- just that their rights don't arise from being First Nations.  The whole, entire point of identifying First Nations peoples is to provide them with protection against stronger, invading and conquering forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For another, when Team Israel negates Palestinian rights, they do so on the basis of indiginous rights and they recognize no other rights as equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't see Team Israel negating Palestinian rights.  I think they argue against indigeneity (as I do), but those are not equivalent.  As I am trying to point out.  But there is no need for them to be equivalent.  There is no harm done for them BOTH to have rights, even if those rights arise from different sources.  And I think Team Israel is, without exception, in agreement that BOTH Israel and Palestinians have rights to their own national self-determination and some sort of sovereignty.  The primary argument that Team Israel makes is not that Palestinians have no rights -- but that they are (currently) incapable of exercising those rights.
> 
> Which is a chasm of difference to the Team Palestine argument that the "Zionists" (read: Jews) have no rights.
> 
> 
> If I was to "sum up" the positions of the Teams now that I've been here a year or so, I would frame it this way:
> 
> Team Palestine:  The Jewish people have no rights because they are not really a people.
> 
> Team Israel:  The Palestinians are behaving badly and until their behaviour improves they are incapable of governing a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure we hashed this out before vis a vis "first nations" status.  I don't agree that Jews are "first nations", particularly given most left thousands of years ago, meanwhile the Palestinians include people who are descended from the same peoples the Jews are.
> 
> Here's my summation:
> 
> Team Palestine:  The Jewish people have no rights because they are foreign invaders and not really a people.
> 
> Team of a few reasonable people:  The Jewish people have a right to self determination, and a right for their nation to exist and be recognized.  Those rights are based on the fact they have deep cultural ties to the region, and that they have been there for thousands of years.  That right also includes a recognition of and respect for the rights of the indiginous and immigrant Palestinian people and their right to self determination.
> 
> Team Israel:  The Palestinians have no rights because they are foreign invaders and not really a people.
> 
> Team of a few reasonable people:  The Palestinian people have a right to self determination the right to build their own state.  Those rights are based on the fact they have deep cultural ties to the region, and that they have been there for thousands of years.  That right includes a recognition of and a respect for the rights of the indiginous and immigrant Jewish peoples.  The expression of that right is based on their ability to co-exist peacefully with their neighbors.
Click to expand...







 Try keeping to the facts as most did not leave, they where taken as slaves by the Roman invaders. If the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians were descended from the Jews then they cant be arab and would have been wiped out in the many pogroms over the years. The many people who visited the holy land prior to WW1 all said the same thing, that the land was barren and devoid of life other than pockets of Jewish farmers and nomadic arab workers. Even Winston Churchill stood up in Parliament and stated that the arab muslims were flooding palestine in their thousands illegally.



 I see that you deny the Jews their legal, moral, religious and human rights to have international law support their claim,s to the land of Israel, and to have the international law that bans Jews from living in Jordan, and arab muslims from living in the Jewish national home. Everything comes down to INTERNATIONAL LAW and which ones are valid for the Jews ?


Now how many homelands do the arab muslims want in palestine, seeing as they received 78% in 1924 and were not satisfied so invaded and demanded it all.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I am seeing get a distinction  here.  For one thing, I do not agree with you on indiginuity.  I consider both to be indiginous or first nations, mixed with a lot of immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't both be first nations.  First Nations, by definition, are those who have not adopted the culture of invading or conquering peoples. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that definition, Jews really can't be considered "First Nations".  They've adopted the culture of the people's they immigrated to which is essentially the same thing.  A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.
Click to expand...







 LINK and EVIDENCE to support your RACIST claims.   As the Jewish culture is the same no matter where you go in the world. Just as the muslim culture is the same no matter where they live. Even converts have to change their ways to be the same.

 WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS WHAT IS POSTED ON ALL THE HATE SITES TO DISENFRANCHISE THE JEWS OF THEIR LEGAL, MORAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.



I don't think that statement is defensible.  But the objective reality of this statement aside, you are doing EXACTLY the same thing that the rest of Team Palestine does -- which is to argue that the Jewish people in the diaspora are not really Jewish, but simply Europeans.  

What's the resistance to just embracing the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel?


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> I don't agree that Jews are "first nations", particularly given most left thousands of years ago, meanwhile the Palestinians include people who are descended from the same peoples the Jews are.



This is another argument for negating the rights of the Jewish people.  Its the same argument used by the rest of Team Palestine, even with the attempt at subtlety.

The Jewish people "left", therefore they have no longer have rights.  The Jewish people did not "leave".  The Jewish people were genocided, ethnically cleansed and exiled.  If you want to put forth the moral argument that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile removes rights from people, in order to be consistent, you must apply that to the current conflict.  Only the Palestinians who have not "left" have any rights.

Of course the Arab Palestinians are descended from a mixture of the local population (the Jewish people) and the invaders.  Who is arguing against that?  That doesn't make them First Nations.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that statement is defensible.  But the objective reality of this statement aside, you are doing EXACTLY the same thing that the rest of Team Palestine does -- which is to argue that the Jewish people in the diaspora are not really Jewish, but simply Europeans.
> 
> What's the resistance to just embracing the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel?
Click to expand...


How is it not defensible? Jewish culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not arguing they are not "Jewish", you can be Jewish and European.  I'm arguing that they don't really qualify as "First Nations" by that definition and the main reason this "First Nation" stuff is being pushed is as a way to create a divide between and heirarchy of rights in relation to Jews and Palestinians and that region of the world.

I have no objection to the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel - in fact, I acknowledged their deep cultural ties to the region.  Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status in the face of the fact that the ancestral Jewish culture has changed through the mixing of the cultures they've adapted to and why is it so important to deny this?  The Palestinians became Arabicized, not sure why it's taboo to note that Jews became Eurpeanized.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status ...



Because it is far too common in the world today, even at the top most international level to deny the Jewish people's history.  Its a defense against an attack.  

Why is it so necessary to deny the Jewish people "First Nations" status?


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that Jews are "first nations", particularly given most left thousands of years ago, meanwhile the Palestinians include people who are descended from the same peoples the Jews are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another argument for negating the rights of the Jewish people.  Its the same argument used by the rest of Team Palestine, even with the attempt at subtlety.
Click to expand...


No it isn't.  So please don't put words in my mouth.

I don't base rights on indiginuity.  That's nothing more than an attempt by Team Israel to negate rights to the group that is not indiginous.
In my opinion, rights of place belong to those who are there and have been there.  Jews have been there for thousands of years, and so have Palestinians.  They need to figure out how to share their land.  That's my view towards rights and it doesn't disenfranchise either group.



> The Jewish people "left", therefore they have no longer have rights.  The Jewish people did not "leave".  The Jewish people were genocided, ethnically cleansed and exiled.  If you want to put forth the moral argument that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile removes rights from people, in order to be consistent, you must apply that to the current conflict.  Only the Palestinians who have not "left" have any rights.



A couple of points here.  First, we are talking about events thousands of years ago.  We are talking about a history that is largely narrated in a book of mythology - some stories are supported by archaeology, others are not.  There is no way of knowing the accuracy of any accountings since, after all it is written by one people's view point.  "Genocided, ethnically cleansed, and exiled" are not concepts that existed thousands of years ago, neither did the more rigourous vetting of historical narratives that modern reasearchers of history bring to the field.  People fought, migrated, conquered, pillaged and raped with impunity and determining what really happened can be pretty far from clear so trying to apply modern concepts and terms to ancient events seems self serving.  Even the concept of "rights" is a relatively recent one.

And, actually, I have stated this before: I don't feel those who have left have any special rights in regards to returning once generations have passed and they've created a home elsewhere.  For example, the Palestinians that have immigrated to the US don't have any special rights to return.  Same with the "right of return" - that exists only for those who were actually dispossed,  not succeeding generations.  I apply that equally to Jews and Palestinians.  Any other rights are those granted by the state - in the case of Israel, the state has granted a "right of return" for Jews.



> Of course the Arab Palestinians are descended from a mixture of the local population (the Jewish people) and the invaders. * Who is arguing against that?*  That doesn't make them First Nations.



Why Team Israel of course.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is far too common in the world today, even at the top most international level to deny the Jewish people's history.  Its a defense against an attack.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Jewish people "First Nations" status?
Click to expand...



One doesn't have to be "First Nation" people's to have a right to their own history, culture and narratives.

Why is it so necessary to deny the Palestinians "First Nations" status?


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty on Team Israel that argue the Palestinians don't exist, they are invented, they are just Arabs and that they should be sent off to other Arab countries.  It's not just one or two folks here.  I've noticed many discussions where there lack of rights is directly related to their lack of existence as a people.  In essence - I've seen the same arguments you attribute to Team Palestine.  I've also seen those who argue against the rights of Jewish people, as you describe - but I've seen just as much libel and demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians.
> 
> There are a handful of posters on either side that don't do this, that actually dig into the issues and try to come up with solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.
> 
> That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.
> 
> Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still pushing your anti semitic Jew hatred. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs, They have never been one people because of the concept of islam, and have only one thing in common islamonazi mentallity.
> 
> The Jews are a proven seperate race that has no genetic links to the arab muslims other than that of the human Genome. The arab muslims you hero worship come from all of the islamic world just to fight the Jews and get beaten every time.
> 
> ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR HATE SITES AND PROPAGANDA THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT MOST OF YOUR CLAIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews are NOT a RACE anymore as I have explained clearly to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have stated your opinion, you have not explained or proved that the Jews are not a race. The only evidence you have is that from the extremist websites that have the genocide of the Jews as their overall aim. The definitive studies have shown that the Jews from Europe, America and Asia all have the same DNA chromosome match with the Jews from the M.E. who never left the land 2000 years ago. The arab muslims claiming to be Palestinians have a completely different DNA to the Jews which is why they refuse to have the test. They know that it will show they are not indigenous to the area and have recently arrived as illegal immigrants.
> 
> The fact that Winston Churchill stood up in Parliament and stated the arab muslims were illegally migrating to Palestine shows that you are trying to hide the truth. At most less than 1% of the worlds Jews are converts because unlike the muslims and Christiansd they don't go touting for people to convert to Judaism.
Click to expand...

Your post is so hilarious Pheo,considering it was the Zionist Illegals that were invading Palestine at the TIME..........You Joker


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that statement is defensible.  But the objective reality of this statement aside, you are doing EXACTLY the same thing that the rest of Team Palestine does -- which is to argue that the Jewish people in the diaspora are not really Jewish, but simply Europeans.
> 
> What's the resistance to just embracing the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not defensible? Jewish culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm not arguing they are not "Jewish", you can be Jewish and European.  I'm arguing that they don't really qualify as "First Nations" by that definition and the main reason this "First Nation" stuff is being pushed is as a way to create a divide between and heirarchy of rights in relation to Jews and Palestinians and that region of the world.
> 
> I have no objection to the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel - in fact, I acknowledged their deep cultural ties to the region.  Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status in the face of the fact that the ancestral Jewish culture has changed through the mixing of the cultures they've adapted to and why is it so important to deny this?  The Palestinians became Arabicized, not sure why it's taboo to note that Jews became Eurpeanized.
Click to expand...






Thats just it you cant be Jewish and European at the same time, as Europeans are mostly Christians and the two cultures are like red and black.The Jews kept their culture all the time they were in the diaspora and it has changed very little over the last 2000 years. The muslim ancestors that moved to the west 1200 years ago had the same culture as the modern muslims just moving there.
Can you provide any evidence of your claim or is it just something you have thought up to deflect away from reality. The palestinians remained Jewish throughout the intervening years, and it was just the migrants that came from the arab peninsular that were "arabized"  to some extent.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is far too common in the world today, even at the top most international level to deny the Jewish people's history.  Its a defense against an attack.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Jewish people "First Nations" status?
Click to expand...






 Because then they dont have to look too closely their own faults and trangressions, remind them that they cant use international laws retrospectively unless they want them to be used against themselves. Give the Jews first nation status and they suddenly become protected from all forms of abuse, and a special case for the UN to protect.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that Jews are "first nations", particularly given most left thousands of years ago, meanwhile the Palestinians include people who are descended from the same peoples the Jews are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another argument for negating the rights of the Jewish people.  Its the same argument used by the rest of Team Palestine, even with the attempt at subtlety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  So please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I don't base rights on indiginuity.  That's nothing more than an attempt by Team Israel to negate rights to the group that is not indiginous.
> In my opinion, rights of place belong to those who are there and have been there.  Jews have been there for thousands of years, and so have Palestinians.  They need to figure out how to share their land.  That's my view towards rights and it doesn't disenfranchise either group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people "left", therefore they have no longer have rights.  The Jewish people did not "leave".  The Jewish people were genocided, ethnically cleansed and exiled.  If you want to put forth the moral argument that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile removes rights from people, in order to be consistent, you must apply that to the current conflict.  Only the Palestinians who have not "left" have any rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points here.  First, we are talking about events thousands of years ago.  We are talking about a history that is largely narrated in a book of mythology - some stories are supported by archaeology, others are not.  There is no way of knowing the accuracy of any accountings since, after all it is written by one people's view point.  "Genocided, ethnically cleansed, and exiled" are not concepts that existed thousands of years ago, neither did the more rigourous vetting of historical narratives that modern reasearchers of history bring to the field.  People fought, migrated, conquered, pillaged and raped with impunity and determining what really happened can be pretty far from clear so trying to apply modern concepts and terms to ancient events seems self serving.  Even the concept of "rights" is a relatively recent one.
> 
> And, actually, I have stated this before: I don't feel those who have left have any special rights in regards to returning once generations have passed and they've created a home elsewhere.  For example, the Palestinians that have immigrated to the US don't have any special rights to return.  Same with the "right of return" - that exists only for those who were actually dispossed,  not succeeding generations.  I apply that equally to Jews and Palestinians.  Any other rights are those granted by the state - in the case of Israel, the state has granted a "right of return" for Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Arab Palestinians are descended from a mixture of the local population (the Jewish people) and the invaders. * Who is arguing against that?*  That doesn't make them First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Team Israel of course.
Click to expand...






 So you are now denying historical facts to demonize the Jews the palestinians were the Jews until the early 1960's when the Soviets told arafat to give his people a name, and he chose filastins. In reality the arab muslims were evicted completely from the land in 1099 and never had any ownership or soveriegnty of the land since.


 No we are talking a history that was written down by Greek, Assyrian, Jewish and Persian scribes for all to read. They are still available if you really want to educate yourself.
The concepts were known about and practiced widely by the arab muslims. By the 7C most cultures had ceased the depravities and started to look for settled lifestyles, the muslims were just beginning to flourish.

 Does this apply to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians then as they left according to their own accounts in 1947-1948, have they lost their rights if not why not ?

What international law introduced the right of return, and why hasn't it been enforced for the Jews and Jerusalem ?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is far too common in the world today, even at the top most international level to deny the Jewish people's history.  Its a defense against an attack.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Jewish people "First Nations" status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't have to be "First Nation" people's to have a right to their own history, culture and narratives.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Palestinians "First Nations" status?
Click to expand...







 At the same time why is it necessary to deny the Jews first nations status as you have done on this thread ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are definitely a tribe or sub-group of Arabic Muslims.
> 
> That said, when they constantly use terrorism as a tool and habitually murder innocent men, women and children, they become a force to be neutralized.
> 
> Add to this, if the other Arab nations/tribes/sub-groups really gave a shit about the Palestinians, they would have accepted them as refugees or helped them build factories in the Palestinian territories.  Instead, those Arabs egged the Palestinians on to commit terrorist atrocities sending them a shitload of weapons, rockets and suicide belts and just enough food to live long enough to die as "martyrs".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry Devine, the Palestinians are a race of people, which the Jews are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still pushing your anti semitic Jew hatred. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are a mongrel nation of many ethnicities, races, nationalities and beliefs, They have never been one people because of the concept of islam, and have only one thing in common islamonazi mentallity.
> 
> The Jews are a proven seperate race that has no genetic links to the arab muslims other than that of the human Genome. The arab muslims you hero worship come from all of the islamic world just to fight the Jews and get beaten every time.
> 
> ALL YOU HAVE IS YOUR HATE SITES AND PROPAGANDA THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT MOST OF YOUR CLAIMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews are NOT a RACE anymore as I have explained clearly to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you have stated your opinion, you have not explained or proved that the Jews are not a race. The only evidence you have is that from the extremist websites that have the genocide of the Jews as their overall aim. The definitive studies have shown that the Jews from Europe, America and Asia all have the same DNA chromosome match with the Jews from the M.E. who never left the land 2000 years ago. The arab muslims claiming to be Palestinians have a completely different DNA to the Jews which is why they refuse to have the test. They know that it will show they are not indigenous to the area and have recently arrived as illegal immigrants.
> 
> The fact that Winston Churchill stood up in Parliament and stated the arab muslims were illegally migrating to Palestine shows that you are trying to hide the truth. At most less than 1% of the worlds Jews are converts because unlike the muslims and Christiansd they don't go touting for people to convert to Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post is so hilarious Pheo,considering it was the Zionist Illegals that were invading Palestine at the TIME..........You Joker
Click to expand...






How could they be illegals when the soveriegn land owners invited them to migrate. Or did you forget about that aspect of international law that was not extended to the arab muslims.

Your attempt at deflection away from the truth is noted and your anti Jewish racist attack is also noted


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that Jews are "first nations", particularly given most left thousands of years ago, meanwhile the Palestinians include people who are descended from the same peoples the Jews are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another argument for negating the rights of the Jewish people.  Its the same argument used by the rest of Team Palestine, even with the attempt at subtlety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  So please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I don't base rights on indiginuity.  That's nothing more than an attempt by Team Israel to negate rights to the group that is not indiginous.
> In my opinion, rights of place belong to those who are there and have been there.  Jews have been there for thousands of years, and so have Palestinians.  They need to figure out how to share their land.  That's my view towards rights and it doesn't disenfranchise either group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people "left", therefore they have no longer have rights.  The Jewish people did not "leave".  The Jewish people were genocided, ethnically cleansed and exiled.  If you want to put forth the moral argument that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile removes rights from people, in order to be consistent, you must apply that to the current conflict.  Only the Palestinians who have not "left" have any rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points here.  First, we are talking about events thousands of years ago.  We are talking about a history that is largely narrated in a book of mythology - some stories are supported by archaeology, others are not.  There is no way of knowing the accuracy of any accountings since, after all it is written by one people's view point.  "Genocided, ethnically cleansed, and exiled" are not concepts that existed thousands of years ago, neither did the more rigourous vetting of historical narratives that modern reasearchers of history bring to the field.  People fought, migrated, conquered, pillaged and raped with impunity and determining what really happened can be pretty far from clear so trying to apply modern concepts and terms to ancient events seems self serving.  Even the concept of "rights" is a relatively recent one.
> 
> And, actually, I have stated this before: I don't feel those who have left have any special rights in regards to returning once generations have passed and they've created a home elsewhere.  For example, the Palestinians that have immigrated to the US don't have any special rights to return.  Same with the "right of return" - that exists only for those who were actually dispossed,  not succeeding generations.  I apply that equally to Jews and Palestinians.  Any other rights are those granted by the state - in the case of Israel, the state has granted a "right of return" for Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Arab Palestinians are descended from a mixture of the local population (the Jewish people) and the invaders. * Who is arguing against that?*  That doesn't make them First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Team Israel of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now denying historical facts to demonize the Jews the palestinians were the Jews until the early 1960's when the Soviets told arafat to give his people a name, and he chose filastins. In reality the arab muslims were evicted completely from the land in 1099 and never had any ownership or soveriegnty of the land since.
> 
> 
> No we are talking a history that was written down by Greek, Assyrian, Jewish and Persian scribes for all to read. They are still available if you really want to educate yourself.
> The concepts were known about and practiced widely by the arab muslims. By the 7C most cultures had ceased the depravities and started to look for settled lifestyles, the muslims were just beginning to flourish.
> 
> Does this apply to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians then as they left according to their own accounts in 1947-1948, have they lost their rights if not why not ?
> 
> What international law introduced the right of return, and why hasn't it been enforced for the Jews and Jerusalem ?
Click to expand...


Have you even read what I posted?  If you had, you wouldn't need to ask those questions.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is far too common in the world today, even at the top most international level to deny the Jewish people's history.  Its a defense against an attack.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Jewish people "First Nations" status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't have to be "First Nation" people's to have a right to their own history, culture and narratives.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Palestinians "First Nations" status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time why is it necessary to deny the Jews first nations status as you have done on this thread ?
Click to expand...


I'm an equal opportunity denier.  I deny them both first nations status. Do you?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that statement is defensible.  But the objective reality of this statement aside, you are doing EXACTLY the same thing that the rest of Team Palestine does -- which is to argue that the Jewish people in the diaspora are not really Jewish, but simply Europeans.
> 
> What's the resistance to just embracing the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not defensible? Jewish culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm not arguing they are not "Jewish", you can be Jewish and European.  I'm arguing that they don't really qualify as "First Nations" by that definition and the main reason this "First Nation" stuff is being pushed is as a way to create a divide between and heirarchy of rights in relation to Jews and Palestinians and that region of the world.
> 
> I have no objection to the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel - in fact, I acknowledged their deep cultural ties to the region.  Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status in the face of the fact that the ancestral Jewish culture has changed through the mixing of the cultures they've adapted to and why is it so important to deny this?  The Palestinians became Arabicized, not sure why it's taboo to note that Jews became Eurpeanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats just it you cant be Jewish and European at the same time, as Europeans are mostly Christians and the two cultures are like red and black.
Click to expand...


Where do you get that idea?  French Jews are French in culture, language and nationality.  Religious differences are just that, religious differences. Same with British Jews.  It's like claiming you can't be Muslim and European at the same time.  You can.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that Jews are "first nations", particularly given most left thousands of years ago, meanwhile the Palestinians include people who are descended from the same peoples the Jews are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another argument for negating the rights of the Jewish people.  Its the same argument used by the rest of Team Palestine, even with the attempt at subtlety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  So please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I don't base rights on indiginuity.  That's nothing more than an attempt by Team Israel to negate rights to the group that is not indiginous.
> In my opinion, rights of place belong to those who are there and have been there.  Jews have been there for thousands of years, and so have Palestinians.  They need to figure out how to share their land.  That's my view towards rights and it doesn't disenfranchise either group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people "left", therefore they have no longer have rights.  The Jewish people did not "leave".  The Jewish people were genocided, ethnically cleansed and exiled.  If you want to put forth the moral argument that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile removes rights from people, in order to be consistent, you must apply that to the current conflict.  Only the Palestinians who have not "left" have any rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points here.  First, we are talking about events thousands of years ago.  We are talking about a history that is largely narrated in a book of mythology - some stories are supported by archaeology, others are not.  There is no way of knowing the accuracy of any accountings since, after all it is written by one people's view point.  "Genocided, ethnically cleansed, and exiled" are not concepts that existed thousands of years ago, neither did the more rigourous vetting of historical narratives that modern reasearchers of history bring to the field.  People fought, migrated, conquered, pillaged and raped with impunity and determining what really happened can be pretty far from clear so trying to apply modern concepts and terms to ancient events seems self serving.  Even the concept of "rights" is a relatively recent one.
> 
> And, actually, I have stated this before: I don't feel those who have left have any special rights in regards to returning once generations have passed and they've created a home elsewhere.  For example, the Palestinians that have immigrated to the US don't have any special rights to return.  Same with the "right of return" - that exists only for those who were actually dispossed,  not succeeding generations.  I apply that equally to Jews and Palestinians.  Any other rights are those granted by the state - in the case of Israel, the state has granted a "right of return" for Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Arab Palestinians are descended from a mixture of the local population (the Jewish people) and the invaders. * Who is arguing against that?*  That doesn't make them First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Team Israel of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now denying historical facts to demonize the Jews the palestinians were the Jews until the early 1960's when the Soviets told arafat to give his people a name, and he chose filastins. In reality the arab muslims were evicted completely from the land in 1099 and never had any ownership or soveriegnty of the land since.
> 
> 
> No we are talking a history that was written down by Greek, Assyrian, Jewish and Persian scribes for all to read. They are still available if you really want to educate yourself.
> The concepts were known about and practiced widely by the arab muslims. By the 7C most cultures had ceased the depravities and started to look for settled lifestyles, the muslims were just beginning to flourish.
> 
> Does this apply to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians then as they left according to their own accounts in 1947-1948, have they lost their rights if not why not ?
> 
> What international law introduced the right of return, and why hasn't it been enforced for the Jews and Jerusalem ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even read what I posted?  If you had, you wouldn't need to ask those questions.
Click to expand...







 Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?   

Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.



 Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is far too common in the world today, even at the top most international level to deny the Jewish people's history.  Its a defense against an attack.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Jewish people "First Nations" status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't have to be "First Nation" people's to have a right to their own history, culture and narratives.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Palestinians "First Nations" status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time why is it necessary to deny the Jews first nations status as you have done on this thread ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an equal opportunity denier.  I deny them both first nations status. Do you?
Click to expand...







 No just as I dont deny the Amerindians first nation status. The evidence is piling up against the arab corner and they are looking for ways out Expect either another attack on Israel or a series of resolutions in the UN


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that statement is defensible.  But the objective reality of this statement aside, you are doing EXACTLY the same thing that the rest of Team Palestine does -- which is to argue that the Jewish people in the diaspora are not really Jewish, but simply Europeans.
> 
> What's the resistance to just embracing the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not defensible? Jewish culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm not arguing they are not "Jewish", you can be Jewish and European.  I'm arguing that they don't really qualify as "First Nations" by that definition and the main reason this "First Nation" stuff is being pushed is as a way to create a divide between and heirarchy of rights in relation to Jews and Palestinians and that region of the world.
> 
> I have no objection to the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel - in fact, I acknowledged their deep cultural ties to the region.  Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status in the face of the fact that the ancestral Jewish culture has changed through the mixing of the cultures they've adapted to and why is it so important to deny this?  The Palestinians became Arabicized, not sure why it's taboo to note that Jews became Eurpeanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats just it you cant be Jewish and European at the same time, as Europeans are mostly Christians and the two cultures are like red and black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get that idea?  French Jews are French in culture, language and nationality.  Religious differences are just that, religious differences. Same with British Jews.  It's like claiming you can't be Muslim and European at the same time.  You can.
Click to expand...





 No French Jews are Jewish first, do you know any actual Jews well enough to meet with them socially. Would they eat the same food as you , dress the same as you, go to the same church as you. Or do they follow strict dietary rules, dress in different clothes to the norm and worship in a synagogue. Their culture is the polar opposite of your and they may follow your ideals but outside of public life they are very different. No matter where they live in the world they have kept their individual culture and follow the tenets of Judaism.

 You cant be muslim and European as it is against islamic law, the cultural differences clash and some times are shown as violent episodes when the European culture forbids the muslums their islamic culture.


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that statement is defensible.  But the objective reality of this statement aside, you are doing EXACTLY the same thing that the rest of Team Palestine does -- which is to argue that the Jewish people in the diaspora are not really Jewish, but simply Europeans.
> 
> What's the resistance to just embracing the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not defensible? Jewish culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm not arguing they are not "Jewish", you can be Jewish and European.  I'm arguing that they don't really qualify as "First Nations" by that definition and the main reason this "First Nation" stuff is being pushed is as a way to create a divide between and heirarchy of rights in relation to Jews and Palestinians and that region of the world.
> 
> I have no objection to the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel - in fact, I acknowledged their deep cultural ties to the region.  Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status in the face of the fact that the ancestral Jewish culture has changed through the mixing of the cultures they've adapted to and why is it so important to deny this?  The Palestinians became Arabicized, not sure why it's taboo to note that Jews became Eurpeanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats just it you cant be Jewish and European at the same time, as Europeans are mostly Christians and the two cultures are like red and black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get that idea?  French Jews are French in culture, language and nationality.  Religious differences are just that, religious differences. Same with British Jews.  It's like claiming you can't be Muslim and European at the same time.  You can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No French Jews are Jewish first, do you know any actual Jews well enough to meet with them socially. Would they eat the same food as you , dress the same as you, go to the same church as you. Or do they follow strict dietary rules, dress in different clothes to the norm and worship in a synagogue. Their culture is the polar opposite of your and they may follow your ideals but outside of public life they are very different. No matter where they live in the world they have kept their individual culture and follow the tenets of Judaism.
> 
> You cant be muslim and European as it is against islamic law, the cultural differences clash and some times are shown as violent episodes when the European culture forbids the muslums their islamic culture.
Click to expand...


----------



## Challenger

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
Click to expand...


By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Challenger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?
Click to expand...

So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.

We understand you now.


----------



## Challenger

Coyote said:


> ...What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.



Squaring the circle, good luck with that. The Zionists don't want peace or reconcilliation, they want a "Jews only" state (or as near as makes no difference)- "Arabenrein". Palestinians want to be able to return to their homes of 1948 and be treated as equal citizens when they do. It's true some Palestinian extremists want every Zionist colonist out, and who can blame them, but the majority will settle for coexistance as equals in their homeland.


----------



## Divine Wind

Phoenall said:


> No French Jews are Jewish first, do you know any actual Jews well enough to meet with them socially. Would they eat the same food as you , dress the same as you, go to the same church as you. Or do they follow strict dietary rules, dress in different clothes to the norm and worship in a synagogue. Their culture is the polar opposite of your and they may follow your ideals but outside of public life they are very different. No matter where they live in the world they have kept their individual culture and follow the tenets of Judaism.
> 
> You cant be muslim and European as it is against islamic law, the cultural differences clash and some times are shown as violent episodes when the European culture forbids the muslums their islamic culture.


A slight disagreement.  While what you say is true regarding Fundamentalists and other strict followers of a religion, as the stats have shown, many people in modern nations are falling away from strictly following any religion. 

For cultural reasons, we see this more in the US than in Europe, but it also applies to Europe.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> ....Palestinians want to be able to return to their homes of 1948 and be treated as equal citizens when they do. It's true some Palestinian extremists want every Zionist colonist out, and who can blame them, but* the majority will settle for coexistance as equals in their homeland*.


Disagreed since they have to remove the Jews first.  In their opinion, preferably in a box.


----------



## Challenger

Weatherman2020 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.
> 
> We understand you now.
Click to expand...


Doubt it.

It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Palestinians want to be able to return to their homes of 1948 and be treated as equal citizens when they do. It's true some Palestinian extremists want every Zionist colonist out, and who can blame them, but* the majority will settle for coexistance as equals in their homeland*.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed since they have to remove the Jews first.  In their opinion, preferably in a box.
Click to expand...


The world would be boring if we all agreed, but look up the definitions of the words "majority" and "extremist", might help you understand my post.


----------



## Challenger

yiostheoy said:


> ...By then the "Christian Jews" had already left, according to Eusebius...



Also known as, "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> ...*It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country.* But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as *the most obscene and unjust of them all*, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?


What are your feelings about the European colonization of Africa and the Americas?  The US genocidal campaign against indigenous natives?  More obscene?  "_Bu...bu...but that's different!_"?


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country.* But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as *the most obscene and unjust of them all*, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?
> 
> 
> 
> What are your feelings about the European colonization of Africa and the Americas?  The US genocidal campaign against indigenous natives?  More obscene?  "_Bu...bu...but that's different!_"?
Click to expand...


Do tell. But do it in the relevant forums, there's a good fellow. This one's about Israel and Palestine.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Challenger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.
> 
> We understand you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubt it.
> 
> It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?
Click to expand...

As you sit on land stolen and claim it to be yours.  You're a fkn hypocrite.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?
Click to expand...







 Or it could be that the Jews in those countries are nothing less than slaves, and so are unable to fight back. Or there could be no islamonazi's there to tell LIES and spread BLOOD LIBELS about the Jews ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...What matters is NOW, and a what matters is that any future must include the rights, dreams and recognition of both those peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Squaring the circle, good luck with that. The Zionists don't want peace or reconcilliation, they want a "Jews only" state (or as near as makes no difference)- "Arabenrein". Palestinians want to be able to return to their homes of 1948 and be treated as equal citizens when they do. It's true some Palestinian extremists want every Zionist colonist out, and who can blame them, but the majority will settle for coexistance as equals in their homeland.
Click to expand...







 And yet you have failed to produce a link to that being official policy, unlike the many links to arab muslim charters that state they want the land free of the Jews.
 Again you cant prove this as they dont want to live in Israel, they want to live in a Jew free palestine islamic caliphate. Look at the facts
 BULLSHIT they all want it to be JUDENREIN as proven by their own words and actions, if they wanted to co-exist they would have forced their leaders to start peace talks with the Jews. No sign of any peace talks is there.


----------



## Phoenall

Divine.Wind said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No French Jews are Jewish first, do you know any actual Jews well enough to meet with them socially. Would they eat the same food as you , dress the same as you, go to the same church as you. Or do they follow strict dietary rules, dress in different clothes to the norm and worship in a synagogue. Their culture is the polar opposite of your and they may follow your ideals but outside of public life they are very different. No matter where they live in the world they have kept their individual culture and follow the tenets of Judaism.
> 
> You cant be muslim and European as it is against islamic law, the cultural differences clash and some times are shown as violent episodes when the European culture forbids the muslums their islamic culture.
> 
> 
> 
> A slight disagreement.  While what you say is true regarding Fundamentalists and other strict followers of a religion, as the stats have shown, many people in modern nations are falling away from strictly following any religion.
> 
> For cultural reasons, we see this more in the US than in Europe, but it also applies to Europe.
Click to expand...






 And the Soviets knew the truth of it, which is why they started the pogroms against the Jews and Catholics. With those two groups in existence they could never have full control over the people, so they made all religion illegal. This is what the neo marxists are hoping to do if they ever get back into power.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is why in a huge world filled with war and strife the OP is about a tiny strip of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.
> 
> We understand you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubt it.
> 
> It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?
Click to expand...







 Yet you see no problem with Egyptians claiming that the toilet in the 5 year old house in Israel was once their bedroom in 1947 before they were forced to leave. how much land have the muslims taken that was not theirs since 1948 ?


----------



## Divine Wind

Phoenall said:


> And the Soviets knew the truth of it, which is why they started the pogroms against the Jews and Catholics. With those two groups in existence they could never have full control over the people, so they made all religion illegal. This is what the neo marxists are hoping to do if they ever get back into power.


While true, that isn't the point I was making.

FWIW, fuck the communists.  Communism and Socialism invariably turn into dictatorships.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> The world would be boring if we all agreed, but look up the definitions of the words "majority" and "extremist", might help you understand my post.


LOL.   Try reading a book or some other factual source.  One fact is that 20%+ of the Israeli population is Arab.  They are, indeed, living peacefully inside Israel.  The assholes outside Israel proper, especially in Gaza, have no intention of living peacefully with any Jews. 

http://www.cbs.gov.il/publications/isr_in_n10e.pdf

http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/statistical/arab_pop08e.pdf

http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/hodaot2013n/11_13_097e.pdf


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Palestinians want to be able to return to their homes of 1948 and be treated as equal citizens when they do. It's true some Palestinian extremists want every Zionist colonist out, and who can blame them, but* the majority will settle for coexistance as equals in their homeland*.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed since they have to remove the Jews first.  In their opinion, preferably in a box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The world would be boring if we all agreed, but look up the definitions of the words "majority" and "extremist", might help you understand my post.
Click to expand...







 It doesn't seem to have worked for you as recent polls show the MAJORITY of islamonazi's in palestine are EXTREMISTS. As in more than half of the population of gaza and the west bank follow a form of islam that sees the genocide of the Jews as being the right thing to do.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...*It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country.* But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as *the most obscene and unjust of them all*, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?
> 
> 
> 
> What are your feelings about the European colonization of Africa and the Americas?  The US genocidal campaign against indigenous natives?  More obscene?  "_Bu...bu...but that's different!_"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell. But do it in the relevant forums, there's a good fellow. This one's about Israel and Palestine.
Click to expand...







 maybe you should take heed of your own words, or are you magically exempt from following them


----------



## Phoenall

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world would be boring if we all agreed, but look up the definitions of the words "majority" and "extremist", might help you understand my post.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.   Try reading a book or some other factual source.  One fact is that 20%+ of the Israeli population is Arab.  They are, indeed, living peacefully inside Israel.  The assholes outside Israel proper, especially in Gaza, have no intention of living peacefully with any Jews.
> 
> http://www.cbs.gov.il/publications/isr_in_n10e.pdf
> 
> http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/statistical/arab_pop08e.pdf
> 
> http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/hodaot2013n/11_13_097e.pdf
Click to expand...







 And that is the same figure that the Ottomans found to be the population split when they held a census. The Jews were 80% and the arab muslims 20% or there abouts. The rest of the "palestinians" are illegal immigrants that arrived with the invading armies and stayed


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...By then the "Christian Jews" had already left, according to Eusebius...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also known as, "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".
Click to expand...







 Only according to you, but then anyone that supports the Jews is dishonest in your eyes


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that Jews are "first nations", particularly given most left thousands of years ago, meanwhile the Palestinians include people who are descended from the same peoples the Jews are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another argument for negating the rights of the Jewish people.  Its the same argument used by the rest of Team Palestine, even with the attempt at subtlety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  So please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I don't base rights on indiginuity.  That's nothing more than an attempt by Team Israel to negate rights to the group that is not indiginous.
> In my opinion, rights of place belong to those who are there and have been there.  Jews have been there for thousands of years, and so have Palestinians.  They need to figure out how to share their land.  That's my view towards rights and it doesn't disenfranchise either group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people "left", therefore they have no longer have rights.  The Jewish people did not "leave".  The Jewish people were genocided, ethnically cleansed and exiled.  If you want to put forth the moral argument that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile removes rights from people, in order to be consistent, you must apply that to the current conflict.  Only the Palestinians who have not "left" have any rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points here.  First, we are talking about events thousands of years ago.  We are talking about a history that is largely narrated in a book of mythology - some stories are supported by archaeology, others are not.  There is no way of knowing the accuracy of any accountings since, after all it is written by one people's view point.  "Genocided, ethnically cleansed, and exiled" are not concepts that existed thousands of years ago, neither did the more rigourous vetting of historical narratives that modern reasearchers of history bring to the field.  People fought, migrated, conquered, pillaged and raped with impunity and determining what really happened can be pretty far from clear so trying to apply modern concepts and terms to ancient events seems self serving.  Even the concept of "rights" is a relatively recent one.
> 
> And, actually, I have stated this before: I don't feel those who have left have any special rights in regards to returning once generations have passed and they've created a home elsewhere.  For example, the Palestinians that have immigrated to the US don't have any special rights to return.  Same with the "right of return" - that exists only for those who were actually dispossed,  not succeeding generations.  I apply that equally to Jews and Palestinians.  Any other rights are those granted by the state - in the case of Israel, the state has granted a "right of return" for Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Arab Palestinians are descended from a mixture of the local population (the Jewish people) and the invaders. * Who is arguing against that?*  That doesn't make them First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Team Israel of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now denying historical facts to demonize the Jews the palestinians were the Jews until the early 1960's when the Soviets told arafat to give his people a name, and he chose filastins. In reality the arab muslims were evicted completely from the land in 1099 and never had any ownership or soveriegnty of the land since.
> 
> 
> No we are talking a history that was written down by Greek, Assyrian, Jewish and Persian scribes for all to read. They are still available if you really want to educate yourself.
> The concepts were known about and practiced widely by the arab muslims. By the 7C most cultures had ceased the depravities and started to look for settled lifestyles, the muslims were just beginning to flourish.
> 
> Does this apply to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians then as they left according to their own accounts in 1947-1948, have they lost their rights if not why not ?
> 
> What international law introduced the right of return, and why hasn't it been enforced for the Jews and Jerusalem ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even read what I posted?  If you had, you wouldn't need to ask those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?
> 
> Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV
Click to expand...


Again.  If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions.  I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is far too common in the world today, even at the top most international level to deny the Jewish people's history.  Its a defense against an attack.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Jewish people "First Nations" status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't have to be "First Nation" people's to have a right to their own history, culture and narratives.
> 
> Why is it so necessary to deny the Palestinians "First Nations" status?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time why is it necessary to deny the Jews first nations status as you have done on this thread ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an equal opportunity denier.  I deny them both first nations status. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No just as I dont deny the Amerindians first nation status. The evidence is piling up against the arab corner and they are looking for ways out Expect either another attack on Israel or a series of resolutions in the UN
Click to expand...


Then you can hardly deny Palestinians first nations status, if your argument is to have any coherence.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large part of what we consider Jewish culture today comes from the interaction of Judaism with East European culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that statement is defensible.  But the objective reality of this statement aside, you are doing EXACTLY the same thing that the rest of Team Palestine does -- which is to argue that the Jewish people in the diaspora are not really Jewish, but simply Europeans.
> 
> What's the resistance to just embracing the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it not defensible? Jewish culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'm not arguing they are not "Jewish", you can be Jewish and European.  I'm arguing that they don't really qualify as "First Nations" by that definition and the main reason this "First Nation" stuff is being pushed is as a way to create a divide between and heirarchy of rights in relation to Jews and Palestinians and that region of the world.
> 
> I have no objection to the idea that the Jewish people's ancestral and spiritual homeland is Israel - in fact, I acknowledged their deep cultural ties to the region.  Why is it necessary to insist they have "First Nation" status in the face of the fact that the ancestral Jewish culture has changed through the mixing of the cultures they've adapted to and why is it so important to deny this?  The Palestinians became Arabicized, not sure why it's taboo to note that Jews became Eurpeanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats just it you cant be Jewish and European at the same time, as Europeans are mostly Christians and the two cultures are like red and black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get that idea?  French Jews are French in culture, language and nationality.  Religious differences are just that, religious differences. Same with British Jews.  It's like claiming you can't be Muslim and European at the same time.  You can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No French Jews are Jewish first, do you know any actual Jews well enough to meet with them socially. Would they eat the same food as you , dress the same as you, go to the same church as you. Or do they follow strict dietary rules, dress in different clothes to the norm and worship in a synagogue. Their culture is the polar opposite of your and they may follow your ideals but outside of public life they are very different. No matter where they live in the world they have kept their individual culture and follow the tenets of Judaism.
> 
> You cant be muslim and European as it is against islamic law, the cultural differences clash and some times are shown as violent episodes when the European culture forbids the muslums their islamic culture.
Click to expand...


Are you Jewish?

If you are, you should realize that many Jews do not keep kosher, eat at Taco Bell, dress in jeans and tshirts with funny slogens, wear birkenstocks, and speak the same language as I do.

You can certainly be Muslim and European and you can be Jewish and European and you can be Christian and European and you can be Pagan and European and you can be Jehovah's Witness and European.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another argument for negating the rights of the Jewish people.  Its the same argument used by the rest of Team Palestine, even with the attempt at subtlety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  So please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I don't base rights on indiginuity.  That's nothing more than an attempt by Team Israel to negate rights to the group that is not indiginous.
> In my opinion, rights of place belong to those who are there and have been there.  Jews have been there for thousands of years, and so have Palestinians.  They need to figure out how to share their land.  That's my view towards rights and it doesn't disenfranchise either group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people "left", therefore they have no longer have rights.  The Jewish people did not "leave".  The Jewish people were genocided, ethnically cleansed and exiled.  If you want to put forth the moral argument that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile removes rights from people, in order to be consistent, you must apply that to the current conflict.  Only the Palestinians who have not "left" have any rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of points here.  First, we are talking about events thousands of years ago.  We are talking about a history that is largely narrated in a book of mythology - some stories are supported by archaeology, others are not.  There is no way of knowing the accuracy of any accountings since, after all it is written by one people's view point.  "Genocided, ethnically cleansed, and exiled" are not concepts that existed thousands of years ago, neither did the more rigourous vetting of historical narratives that modern reasearchers of history bring to the field.  People fought, migrated, conquered, pillaged and raped with impunity and determining what really happened can be pretty far from clear so trying to apply modern concepts and terms to ancient events seems self serving.  Even the concept of "rights" is a relatively recent one.
> 
> And, actually, I have stated this before: I don't feel those who have left have any special rights in regards to returning once generations have passed and they've created a home elsewhere.  For example, the Palestinians that have immigrated to the US don't have any special rights to return.  Same with the "right of return" - that exists only for those who were actually dispossed,  not succeeding generations.  I apply that equally to Jews and Palestinians.  Any other rights are those granted by the state - in the case of Israel, the state has granted a "right of return" for Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Arab Palestinians are descended from a mixture of the local population (the Jewish people) and the invaders. * Who is arguing against that?*  That doesn't make them First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Team Israel of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now denying historical facts to demonize the Jews the palestinians were the Jews until the early 1960's when the Soviets told arafat to give his people a name, and he chose filastins. In reality the arab muslims were evicted completely from the land in 1099 and never had any ownership or soveriegnty of the land since.
> 
> 
> No we are talking a history that was written down by Greek, Assyrian, Jewish and Persian scribes for all to read. They are still available if you really want to educate yourself.
> The concepts were known about and practiced widely by the arab muslims. By the 7C most cultures had ceased the depravities and started to look for settled lifestyles, the muslims were just beginning to flourish.
> 
> Does this apply to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians then as they left according to their own accounts in 1947-1948, have they lost their rights if not why not ?
> 
> What international law introduced the right of return, and why hasn't it been enforced for the Jews and Jerusalem ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even read what I posted?  If you had, you wouldn't need to ask those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?
> 
> Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions.  I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.
Click to expand...







 And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.

First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  So please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> I don't base rights on indiginuity.  That's nothing more than an attempt by Team Israel to negate rights to the group that is not indiginous.
> In my opinion, rights of place belong to those who are there and have been there.  Jews have been there for thousands of years, and so have Palestinians.  They need to figure out how to share their land.  That's my view towards rights and it doesn't disenfranchise either group.
> 
> A couple of points here.  First, we are talking about events thousands of years ago.  We are talking about a history that is largely narrated in a book of mythology - some stories are supported by archaeology, others are not.  There is no way of knowing the accuracy of any accountings since, after all it is written by one people's view point.  "Genocided, ethnically cleansed, and exiled" are not concepts that existed thousands of years ago, neither did the more rigourous vetting of historical narratives that modern reasearchers of history bring to the field.  People fought, migrated, conquered, pillaged and raped with impunity and determining what really happened can be pretty far from clear so trying to apply modern concepts and terms to ancient events seems self serving.  Even the concept of "rights" is a relatively recent one.
> 
> And, actually, I have stated this before: I don't feel those who have left have any special rights in regards to returning once generations have passed and they've created a home elsewhere.  For example, the Palestinians that have immigrated to the US don't have any special rights to return.  Same with the "right of return" - that exists only for those who were actually dispossed,  not succeeding generations.  I apply that equally to Jews and Palestinians.  Any other rights are those granted by the state - in the case of Israel, the state has granted a "right of return" for Jews.
> 
> Why Team Israel of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now denying historical facts to demonize the Jews the palestinians were the Jews until the early 1960's when the Soviets told arafat to give his people a name, and he chose filastins. In reality the arab muslims were evicted completely from the land in 1099 and never had any ownership or soveriegnty of the land since.
> 
> 
> No we are talking a history that was written down by Greek, Assyrian, Jewish and Persian scribes for all to read. They are still available if you really want to educate yourself.
> The concepts were known about and practiced widely by the arab muslims. By the 7C most cultures had ceased the depravities and started to look for settled lifestyles, the muslims were just beginning to flourish.
> 
> Does this apply to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians then as they left according to their own accounts in 1947-1948, have they lost their rights if not why not ?
> 
> What international law introduced the right of return, and why hasn't it been enforced for the Jews and Jerusalem ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even read what I posted?  If you had, you wouldn't need to ask those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?
> 
> Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions.  I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.
> 
> First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home
Click to expand...



Man, you really can't read.

I'm ignoring nothing.

First Nations:  First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so.  The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now denying historical facts to demonize the Jews the palestinians were the Jews until the early 1960's when the Soviets told arafat to give his people a name, and he chose filastins. In reality the arab muslims were evicted completely from the land in 1099 and never had any ownership or soveriegnty of the land since.
> 
> 
> No we are talking a history that was written down by Greek, Assyrian, Jewish and Persian scribes for all to read. They are still available if you really want to educate yourself.
> The concepts were known about and practiced widely by the arab muslims. By the 7C most cultures had ceased the depravities and started to look for settled lifestyles, the muslims were just beginning to flourish.
> 
> Does this apply to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians then as they left according to their own accounts in 1947-1948, have they lost their rights if not why not ?
> 
> What international law introduced the right of return, and why hasn't it been enforced for the Jews and Jerusalem ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you even read what I posted?  If you had, you wouldn't need to ask those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?
> 
> Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions.  I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.
> 
> First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you really can't read.
> 
> I'm ignoring nothing.
> 
> First Nations:  First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so.  The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.
Click to expand...








 Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?

 Just asking


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you even read what I posted?  If you had, you wouldn't need to ask those questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?
> 
> Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.  If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions.  I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.
> 
> First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you really can't read.
> 
> I'm ignoring nothing.
> 
> First Nations:  First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so.  The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?
> 
> Just asking
Click to expand...


Canada defined the First Nations.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?
> 
> Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions.  I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.
> 
> First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you really can't read.
> 
> I'm ignoring nothing.
> 
> First Nations:  First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so.  The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?
> 
> Just asking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canada defined the First Nations.
Click to expand...






 For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?


----------



## Challenger

Weatherman2020 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.
> 
> We understand you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubt it.
> 
> It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you sit on land stolen and claim it to be yours.  You're a fkn hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Who'd I steal the land where my house stands from? I've met the farmer who sold the land originally to the builder and he's happy. Perhaps you mean the Anglo-Saxons who lost it to the Danes, or the Danes who lost it to the Normans, or do you want to go back to the Romano-British or the Romans (who abandoned it anyway) or the Celts before them? Explain how I'm being hypocritical.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world would be boring if we all agreed, but look up the definitions of the words "majority" and "extremist", might help you understand my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assholes outside Israel proper, especially in Gaza, have no intention of living peacefully with any Jews.
Click to expand...


How do you know? Have you asked them?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions.  I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.
> 
> First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you really can't read.
> 
> I'm ignoring nothing.
> 
> First Nations:  First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so.  The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?
> 
> Just asking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canada defined the First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with borders.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Challenger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the Pakistan/India forum?  Cambodia/Thailand forum?
> 
> Oh yeah, no Jews there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.
> 
> We understand you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubt it.
> 
> It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you sit on land stolen and claim it to be yours.  You're a fkn hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who'd I steal the land where my house stands from? I've met the farmer who sold the land originally to the builder and he's happy. Perhaps you mean the Anglo-Saxons who lost it to the Danes, or the Danes who lost it to the Normans, or do you want to go back to the Romano-British or the Romans (who abandoned it anyway) or the Celts before them? Explain how I'm being hypocritical.
Click to expand...

From my Cherokee wife.  Give it back.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world would be boring if we all agreed, but look up the definitions of the words "majority" and "extremist", might help you understand my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assholes outside Israel proper, especially in Gaza, have no intention of living peacefully with any Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know? Have you asked them?
Click to expand...







 YES and the replied with their charter.................


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.
> 
> First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you really can't read.
> 
> I'm ignoring nothing.
> 
> First Nations:  First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so.  The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?
> 
> Just asking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canada defined the First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with borders.
Click to expand...






 Yes it has as the borders you set should be inviolate. Another nation should not be allowed to define who can live on your land. In this case Canada, who should not be defining who is first nations for the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you really can't read.
> 
> I'm ignoring nothing.
> 
> First Nations:  First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so.  The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?
> 
> Just asking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canada defined the First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has as the borders you set should be inviolate. Another nation should not be allowed to define who can live on your land. In this case Canada, who should not be defining who is first nations for the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.
Click to expand...



I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal.  FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people.  BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does.  The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures.  It's a term that applies to native American peoples.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal.  FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people.  BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does.  The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures.  It's a term that applies to native American peoples.



It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures.  There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?
> 
> Just asking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada defined the First Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would say that because borders, as in extent of authority, do not come into it when the P.A.declare that they are first nations people of the Americas. Where does your extent of authority start and end if borders dont come into it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it has as the borders you set should be inviolate. Another nation should not be allowed to define who can live on your land. In this case Canada, who should not be defining who is first nations for the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal.  FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people.  BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does.  The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures.  It's a term that applies to native American peoples.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal.  FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people.  BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does.  The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures.  It's a term that applies to native American peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures.  There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.
Click to expand...





 Exactly where does the authority start and end for declaring this group are first nations while this group aren't. Who issues the authority to the decision makers if not themselves ?


----------



## Mindful

The creation of countries:

Mark Twain -- Samuel Clemens -- took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.

This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. The Palestinian Royal Commission said:

"The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."

That was 1913.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as "a hopeless, dreary place." In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941. The borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Israel's Right to the Land


----------



## Shusha

Mindful said:


> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.



Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.


----------



## Mindful

Shusha said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
Click to expand...


What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.


----------



## Shusha

Mindful said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.
Click to expand...



The Syrians are a "real" people.  The Iraqis are a "real" people.  The Jordanians are a "real" people.  The Lebanese are a "real" people.  The Palestinians are a "real" people.  

The Jews aren't.


----------



## Mindful

Might be worth having an in depth study of Arabs under Ottoman rule.


----------



## Challenger

Weatherman2020 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there *are* Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.
> 
> We understand you now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubt it.
> 
> It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that.  Understand me now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you sit on land stolen and claim it to be yours.  You're a fkn hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who'd I steal the land where my house stands from? I've met the farmer who sold the land originally to the builder and he's happy. Perhaps you mean the Anglo-Saxons who lost it to the Danes, or the Danes who lost it to the Normans, or do you want to go back to the Romano-British or the Romans (who abandoned it anyway) or the Celts before them? Explain how I'm being hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From my Cherokee wife.  Give it back.
Click to expand...


Seems your geography is as good as your comprehension skills.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Syrians are a "real" people.  The Iraqis are a "real" people.  The Jordanians are a "real" people.  The Lebanese are a "real" people.  The Palestinians are a "real" people.
> 
> *The Jews aren't.*
Click to expand...


Finally, the penny drops.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Syrians are a "real" people.  The Iraqis are a "real" people.  The Jordanians are a "real" people.  The Lebanese are a "real" people.  The Palestinians are a "real" people.
> 
> *The Jews aren't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, the penny drops.
Click to expand...


Idiot!


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Syrians are a "real" people.  The Iraqis are a "real" people.  The Jordanians are a "real" people.  The Lebanese are a "real" people.  The Palestinians are a "real" people.
> 
> *The Jews aren't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, the penny drops.
Click to expand...







 Yet it hasnt dropped for you as the post was meant to show that the Jews are an older people than any of the arab muslims are


----------



## Shusha

The post was intended to show the antisemitism which underlies the political ideology of many of our posters and much of the Arab and Muslim worlds -- the fundamental antisemitism which calls for the Jewish people to be treated differently than other peoples or groups.  

The fact that Jews are not a "real" people is not a criticism of Israel's policies and governance.  It is a belief that the rules which apply to all others peoples do not apply to Jews.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal.  FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people.  BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does.  The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures.  It's a term that applies to native American peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures.  There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.
Click to expand...


The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.  It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.  It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.  It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights to the place, and certainly FEWER rights then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
Click to expand...



I disagree.  Historically, Israel reinvented itself.  It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture,  and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted.  It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region.  Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal.  FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people.  BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does.  The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures.  It's a term that applies to native American peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures.  There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where does the authority start and end for declaring this group are first nations while this group aren't. Who issues the authority to the decision makers if not themselves ?
Click to expand...


Presumably, anyone can claim anything.


----------



## Mindful

Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal.  FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people.  BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does.  The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures.  It's a term that applies to native American peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures.  There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.  It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.  It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.  It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights to the place, and certainly FEWER rights then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...







 Is that the same as you wanting to use it for a nation that has never existed, and is made up of people from many nations that have no claim to the land at all. What rights do you give your "first nations " people then,other than allowing them to live in deserts and not allowing them their own laws and police force. In the case of the Jews they have lived there for 4.500 years or so according to scientific evidence, while those you push as having first nation status have less than 100 years for the majority and at most 900 years for a handful. Under international laws of the time the legal sovereign landowners granted the arab muslims 78% of palestine under the understanding that the arab muslims in the other 22% who did not want to live under Jewish rule would migrate and set up home there. They have even less rights as they migrated there after 1850 when the Ottomans invited the Jews to settle and farm the land. Using your argument what rights do you have to live where you do, and keep pushing for retrospective enforcement of laws and you could lose everything


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Historically, Israel reinvented itself.  It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture,  and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted.  It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region.  Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.
Click to expand...






 And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land    NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well.   What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal.  FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people.  BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does.  The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures.  It's a term that applies to native American peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures.  There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where does the authority start and end for declaring this group are first nations while this group aren't. Who issues the authority to the decision makers if not themselves ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presumably, anyone can claim anything.
Click to expand...






 Claiming and putting into action are two different things. As the arab muslims are finding out when international law is enforced and they find themselves being killed in response to their violence.


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.







 Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.
Click to expand...




Phoenall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.
Click to expand...


Is it? I wonder what the Byzantine church is doing there.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Historically, Israel reinvented itself.  It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture,  and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted.  It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region.  Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land    NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well.   What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.
Click to expand...


My point is - nations can be reinvented and recreated based on guesses about ancient history, but they are modern nations.  Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.

I'm not claiming that archaeological evidence supports anyone's CLAIMS to anything.  What is it with you guys and reading comprehension?


----------



## Divine Wind

Phoenall said:


> It doesn't seem to have worked for you as recent polls show the MAJORITY of islamonazi's in palestine are EXTREMISTS. As in more than half of the population of gaza and the west bank follow a form of islam that sees the genocide of the Jews as being the right thing to do.


1) There's no such place as "Palestine".  Only fools and extremists claim there is such a place.

2) Scroll up, I did say all the asshole/antisemites are in Gaza and, to a lesser extent, the West Bank.  The Arabs inside Israel are peaceful.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago



I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation. 



> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.



Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.  

Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.



> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.


Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.  



> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.


As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.  

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.  



> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...


Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.  

I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).  

I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong. 

Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.  



> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.


You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
Click to expand...

One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.

So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.

The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
Click to expand...


And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.

Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights.  Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.

Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture.



> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
Click to expand...


The history of the Jewish people, like many ancient histories is a mixed bag of unsupported myth and history supported by archeological evidence.  Did Moses exist for example? I would be saying the exact same thing about biblical Christian history and of Islamic history.



> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.


When you are talking about history several thousand years ago, then yes, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and checked against archaeological evidence.



> What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights?



That's the problem right there, and why I hate even bothering to discuss stuff in IP any more.  You are immediately jumping to the assumption that this has something to do with whether a people is a people and whether they are deserving of rights.  It has absolutely no bearing on that  (from my point of view) but it has the effect of creating a minefield of topics that can't now be discussed. Jews don't need any special  status or terminology to be considered a people or to have the same basic rights as any people.



> Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?


Because I've never argued that ANY nation can't be a nation for those reasons so why would I start now?



> Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.



It doesn't?  OK, specifically HOW am I applying any different criteria to Israel's right to exist than any other country, or the rights of the Jewish people to self determination than any other people?



> In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.



Bullshit.  What rights am I denying them that I don't deny others?  What special rights do I grant others that I deny the Jewish people?



> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
Click to expand...

Those rights belong to everyone.



> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> 
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
Click to expand...


Then tell that to Team Israel.


> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> 
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

I'm not going to go in to depth, but I think you are rather selectively blind to Team Israel's statements in regards to the rights and legitimacy as people of the Palestinians. I think you and a few others represent a rational minority in this.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
Click to expand...

The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing mythical about the archeological dig I visited on the Golan Heights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the one at Masada that is wholly Jewish from the 1C C.E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? I wonder what the Byzantine church is doing there.
Click to expand...






 Came after the Romans killed the inhabitants as it was the last stronghold of the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
Click to expand...







 Then produce these facts so we can see for ourselves, and none of your usual islaminazi crap


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Historically, Israel reinvented itself.  It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture,  and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted.  It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region.  Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land    NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well.   What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is - nations can be reinvented and recreated based on guesses about ancient history, but they are modern nations.  Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> I'm not claiming that archaeological evidence supports anyone's CLAIMS to anything.  What is it with you guys and reading comprehension?
Click to expand...






 And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then produce these facts so we can see for ourselves, and none of your usual islaminazi crap
Click to expand...

The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238 – (79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).
Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%).

On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in=1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
Click to expand...







 What rights did they deny them then when they kicked them out of their homes. Dont forget you cant use rights granted in 2000 for actions in 1948. How have they denied them their right to free determination as an example.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> 
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then produce these facts so we can see for ourselves, and none of your usual islaminazi crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238 – (79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.
> 
> As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).
> Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%).
> 
> On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in=1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
Click to expand...








And once again you resort to an islamonazi source for your evidence that is highly biased against the Jews. Now find another source that is biased against the arab muslims


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then produce these facts so we can see for ourselves, and none of your usual islaminazi crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238 – (79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.
> 
> As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).
> Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%).
> 
> On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in=1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you resort to an islamonazi source for your evidence that is highly biased against the Jews. Now find another source that is biased against the arab muslims
Click to expand...

Those are British Mandate numbers.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> The post was intended to show the antisemitism which underlies the political ideology of many of our posters and much of the Arab and Muslim worlds -- the fundamental antisemitism which calls for the Jewish people to be treated differently than other peoples or groups.
> 
> The fact that Jews are not a "real" people is not a criticism of Israel's policies and governance.  It is a belief that the rules which apply to all others peoples do not apply to Jews.



Ah, whenever facts clash with Zionist mythology, the inevitable canard comes out, "anti-Semite!" Doesn't work any more Shusha. As more and more people discover the "history" Zionists have created in order to further their pseudo-nationalism, is in fact made up, the whole zionist project comes under more intense scrutiny and so more and more lies are discovered. That's why the Zionist regime won't release documents from the 1960's that should be freely available under Israeli law; because of "security concerns". Right. The fear of the world discovering the truth is definitely a "security concern" for the future of the Zionist paradise.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights.  Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of the Jewish people, like many ancient histories is a mixed bag of unsupported myth and history supported by archeological evidence.  Did Moses exist for example? I would be saying the exact same thing about biblical Christian history and of Islamic history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you are talking about history several thousand years ago, then yes, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and checked against archaeological evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the problem right there, and why I hate even bothering to discuss stuff in IP any more.  You are immediately jumping to the assumption that this has something to do with whether a people is a people and whether they are deserving of rights.  It has absolutely no bearing on that  (from my point of view) but it has the effect of creating a minefield of topics that can't now be discussed. Jews don't need any special  status or terminology to be considered a people or to have the same basic rights as any people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I've never argued that ANY nation can't be a nation for those reasons so why would I start now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't?  OK, specifically HOW am I applying any different criteria to Israel's right to exist than any other country, or the rights of the Jewish people to self determination than any other people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  What rights am I denying them that I don't deny others?  What special rights do I grant others that I deny the Jewish people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those rights belong to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then tell that to Team Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm not going to go in to depth, but I think you are rather selectively blind to Team Israel's statements in regards to the rights and legitimacy as people of the Palestinians. I think you and a few others represent a rational minority in this.[/QUOTE]







 Not me saying this but historical; evidence and arab muslim leaders who coined the name filastinian for the arab muslim invaders on the command of the Soviets. The records show that Winston Churchill stood up in the house of Commons and told the world that arab muslims were illegally entering the mandate of palestine in their thousands unhindered and uncounted.  They are a people just not of the land granted to the Jews for their national home.

In the past you denied Israel the right of international law when it granted them 22% of palestine as their national home. In fact you denied the existence of this international law even when bombarded with the evidence. Strangely you accepted it when it worked for the arab muslims and granted them their lands ?

And you cant use rights granted in 2000 for actions in 1948 can you, which is what you try to do. Just as you try to use UN resolutions as if they were international laws retrospectively, as in the right of return or the acquisition of land through force.

If the arab muslims are proven illegal immigrants post 1923 then they should be evicted from the land, as that is the law. There is no statute of limitations on the expulsion of illegal immigrants and once unearthed they will be deported. Same with terrorists and their supporters, once unearthed out they go. For me anyone that has Israeli citizenship that claims they are palestinian should also be deported as an enemy of the state


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> 
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then produce these facts so we can see for ourselves, and none of your usual islaminazi crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The result of this calculation indicates the total number of Ottoman subjects, from all religions, residing in Palestine in 1925 as being: 847,238 – (79,368 + 37,997) = 729,873 persons. These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.
> 
> As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, another calculation is required. The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic-speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians).
> Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006 + 8,507)–2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ (or nearly 99%).
> 
> On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in=1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ (or about 1%).
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you resort to an islamonazi source for your evidence that is highly biased against the Jews. Now find another source that is biased against the arab muslims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are British Mandate numbers.
Click to expand...






 Compiled for the British by the arab muslims, why dont you use the actual Ottoman census returns that show the Jews outnumbered the arab muslims ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The post was intended to show the antisemitism which underlies the political ideology of many of our posters and much of the Arab and Muslim worlds -- the fundamental antisemitism which calls for the Jewish people to be treated differently than other peoples or groups.
> 
> The fact that Jews are not a "real" people is not a criticism of Israel's policies and governance.  It is a belief that the rules which apply to all others peoples do not apply to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, whenever facts clash with Zionist mythology, the inevitable canard comes out, "anti-Semite!" Doesn't work any more Shusha. As more and more people discover the "history" Zionists have created in order to further their pseudo-nationalism, is in fact made up, the whole zionist project comes under more intense scrutiny and so more and more lies are discovered. That's why the Zionist regime won't release documents from the 1960's that should be freely available under Israeli law; because of "security concerns". Right. The fear of the world discovering the truth is definitely a "security concern" for the future of the Zionist paradise.
Click to expand...








 And this alleged history can only be found on the hate sites that you frequent, and never on any unbiased or Jewish sutes. 

 Once again you resort to the haters out of context use of the term zionist, making it a racially charged insult.

Strange I dont see you campaigning for the British government to release documents that should be freely available because it would destroy the Palace of Westminster and cause civil war


----------



## Challenger

Coyote said:


> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.



If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.



Shusha said:


> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.



I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...







 According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.

COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.

No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.
> 
> COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.
> 
> No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group
Click to expand...

Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Historically, Israel reinvented itself.  It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture,  and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted.  It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region.  Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land    NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well.   What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is - nations can be reinvented and recreated based on guesses about ancient history, but they are modern nations.  Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> I'm not claiming that archaeological evidence supports anyone's CLAIMS to anything.  What is it with you guys and reading comprehension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed
Click to expand...

Where have I ever supported that? Got a link? (Course not)


----------



## Coyote

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
Click to expand...


Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Are you saying a Jewish people did not exist prior to Zionist historians? In this area science does provide genetic evidence of close relationships among the Jewish people. A huge difference from members of proselytizing religions.


----------



## Divine Wind

Coyote said:


> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture......


Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?

There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.

There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?


----------



## Challenger

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying a Jewish people did not exist prior to Zionist historians? In this area science does provide genetic evidence of close relationships among the Jewish people. A huge difference from members of proselytizing religions.
Click to expand...


Judaism is a religion and of course there were adherants and practicioners of the religion before Zionism emerged, that has never been in doubt, but that's a religious group, not an ethenic one. Judea/Palestine in antiquity was a cosmopolitan area containing several ethicities speaking different languages and having their own customs and religions. Also Judaism *was* a proselytising religion for centuries until supplanted by Christianity and was not above carrying out forced conversions, especially during the Hashmonean period. As for "genetic evidence", the jury is still out on that one, so I'll forego comment.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Divine.Wind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?
Click to expand...

Good question. What were Native Americans called before it was America?

Did they just not exist?


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> ....Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?



Welll not so much. The Arab conquest did not result in a mass Arab migration into the area the Romano-Byzantine landowners were given the choice to convert to Islam or leave and the estates of those who left were taken over by Arab leaders/nobles/officers. The common people weren't given the option to leave and wwere allowed to go on as before so long as they paid "tribute" (taxes). Jerusalem was founded by Hurrians. The dead sea scrolls are religious texts that so far have proved nothing other than JUdaism was around in the Hashmonean period, which we knew already. Masada was built be the Edomite king of Judea and had no significance at all to Jewish people until Zionist historians publicised the siege based on the account of Flavius Josephus (even the mass suicide story is now disputed) No-one really knows exactly where "Solomon's" temple actually stood, so nothing is a clear cut as you'd like it to be. 

At least we can agree that there is no such race as "Jews".


----------



## Challenger

Coyote said:


> Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.



Historical narratives, not necessarily Biblical narratives, and when you say archaeology, do you mean Archaology proper or Biblical Archaeology? The latter has a reputation of sticking an arrow in the ground then painting the target around it before crying "bullseye!" The word "Kingdom" also covers a lot of sins. In ancient Britain, for example, if you owned a couple of farms and could afford a bunch of thugs to fight for you, you were a "king".


----------



## Divine Wind

P F Tinmore said:


> Good question. What were Native Americans called before it was America?
> 
> Did they just not exist?


Various names of tribes just like the twelve tribes of Israel.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Welll not so much. The Arab conquest did not result in a mass Arab migration into the area the Romano-Byzantine landowners were given the choice to convert to Islam or leave and the estates of those who left were taken over by Arab leaders/nobles/officers. The common people weren't given the option to leave and wwere allowed to go on as before so long as they paid "tribute" (taxes). Jerusalem was founded by Hurrians. The dead sea scrolls are religious texts that so far have proved nothing other than JUdaism was around in the Hashmonean period, which we knew already. Masada was built be the Edomite king of Judea and had no significance at all to Jewish people until Zionist historians publicised the siege based on the account of Flavius Josephus (even the mass suicide story is now disputed) No-one really knows exactly where "Solomon's" temple actually stood, so nothing is a clear cut as you'd like it to be.
> 
> At least we can agree that there is no such race as "Jews".


Translation: _ The Jews have no claim to Israel, but the Palestinians do_.  

Thanks for your input.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welll not so much. The Arab conquest did not result in a mass Arab migration into the area the Romano-Byzantine landowners were given the choice to convert to Islam or leave and the estates of those who left were taken over by Arab leaders/nobles/officers. The common people weren't given the option to leave and wwere allowed to go on as before so long as they paid "tribute" (taxes). Jerusalem was founded by Hurrians. The dead sea scrolls are religious texts that so far have proved nothing other than JUdaism was around in the Hashmonean period, which we knew already. Masada was built be the Edomite king of Judea and had no significance at all to Jewish people until Zionist historians publicised the siege based on the account of Flavius Josephus (even the mass suicide story is now disputed) No-one really knows exactly where "Solomon's" temple actually stood, so nothing is a clear cut as you'd like it to be.
> 
> At least we can agree that there is no such race as "Jews".
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: _ The Jews have no claim to Israel, but the Palestinians do_.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...


The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than European colonists driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.


----------



## Hollie

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welll not so much. The Arab conquest did not result in a mass Arab migration into the area the Romano-Byzantine landowners were given the choice to convert to Islam or leave and the estates of those who left were taken over by Arab leaders/nobles/officers. The common people weren't given the option to leave and wwere allowed to go on as before so long as they paid "tribute" (taxes). Jerusalem was founded by Hurrians. The dead sea scrolls are religious texts that so far have proved nothing other than JUdaism was around in the Hashmonean period, which we knew already. Masada was built be the Edomite king of Judea and had no significance at all to Jewish people until Zionist historians publicised the siege based on the account of Flavius Josephus (even the mass suicide story is now disputed) No-one really knows exactly where "Solomon's" temple actually stood, so nothing is a clear cut as you'd like it to be.
> 
> At least we can agree that there is no such race as "Jews".
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: _ The Jews have no claim to Israel, but the Palestinians do_.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than European colonists driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.
Click to expand...

It's a stretch to falsely label Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters / colonists as native people.

Glad to assist with your education.


----------



## Coyote

Divine.Wind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?
Click to expand...


The Palestinians descend from a mix of ancient peoples there, including Jews, and others, as well as later Arabs, so they precede the Arabs.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Jerusalem was founded by the Jews or the authenticity of Masada, etc.

"First Nations" really doesn't apply to this situation, either to the Jewish people or the Palestinians and ancient history really shouldn't be the determinator of claims to the region imo.


----------



## Coyote

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying a Jewish people did not exist prior to Zionist historians? In this area science does provide genetic evidence of close relationships among the Jewish people. A huge difference from members of proselytizing religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judaism is a religion and of course there were adherants and practicioners of the religion before Zionism emerged, that has never been in doubt, but that's a religious group, not an ethenic one. Judea/Palestine in antiquity was a cosmopolitan area containing several ethicities speaking different languages and having their own customs and religions. Also Judaism *was* a proselytising religion for centuries until supplanted by Christianity and was not above carrying out forced conversions, especially during the Hashmonean period. As for "genetic evidence", the jury is still out on that one, so I'll forego comment.
Click to expand...


I've never heard it was a proselytising religion - do you have a source for these?


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.



I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.

Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.
> 
> COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.
> 
> No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.
Click to expand...







 Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Historically, Israel reinvented itself.  It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture,  and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted.  It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region.  Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land    NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well.   What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is - nations can be reinvented and recreated based on guesses about ancient history, but they are modern nations.  Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> I'm not claiming that archaeological evidence supports anyone's CLAIMS to anything.  What is it with you guys and reading comprehension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have I ever supported that? Got a link? (Course not)
Click to expand...






 I dont have the time to trawl through thousands of past posts, but you have said that the Jews dont have the right to claim the land and that International laws dont exist when they support the Jews claims.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying a Jewish people did not exist prior to Zionist historians? In this area science does provide genetic evidence of close relationships among the Jewish people. A huge difference from members of proselytizing religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judaism is a religion and of course there were adherants and practicioners of the religion before Zionism emerged, that has never been in doubt, but that's a religious group, not an ethenic one. Judea/Palestine in antiquity was a cosmopolitan area containing several ethicities speaking different languages and having their own customs and religions. Also Judaism *was* a proselytising religion for centuries until supplanted by Christianity and was not above carrying out forced conversions, especially during the Hashmonean period. As for "genetic evidence", the jury is still out on that one, so I'll forego comment.
Click to expand...







 That was 2000 years ago, after the diaspora they stopped touting for members and stayed true to their race. Israel today is a cosmopolitan nation, but the Jews are still true. So how about a link to prove your claim, or is it from one of the many hate sites you visit ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question. What were Native Americans called before it was America?
> 
> Did they just not exist?
Click to expand...






 They had many names like Cherokee, Sioux, Comanche, Mohican, Black Feet, Navajo to name but a few. It was the Romans that named the Jews palestinians as an insult, and the Christians took it up as a derogatory term. Then in the 8C it was the arab muslims that turned it into a swear word, while calling themselves Syrians


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welll not so much. The Arab conquest did not result in a mass Arab migration into the area the Romano-Byzantine landowners were given the choice to convert to Islam or leave and the estates of those who left were taken over by Arab leaders/nobles/officers. The common people weren't given the option to leave and wwere allowed to go on as before so long as they paid "tribute" (taxes). Jerusalem was founded by Hurrians. The dead sea scrolls are religious texts that so far have proved nothing other than JUdaism was around in the Hashmonean period, which we knew already. Masada was built be the Edomite king of Judea and had no significance at all to Jewish people until Zionist historians publicised the siege based on the account of Flavius Josephus (even the mass suicide story is now disputed) No-one really knows exactly where "Solomon's" temple actually stood, so nothing is a clear cut as you'd like it to be.
> 
> At least we can agree that there is no such race as "Jews".
Click to expand...








 All according to which hate site from the dozens you visit, you wont give a link to your claims as you know that the site alone will be enough to put most people off.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than European colonists driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.


What is your genealogical ancestry? Are you going to give up your stake in America to its natives and return to the Old Country?......or does that idea only apply to Jews?


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
Click to expand...







 Yes they have on the land that they originally came from if less than 100 years ago.

 DNA testing and property title issued by the Ottomans or the British. Waving around a rusty key bought in a market proves nothing, or one of the many thousands that arafat had printed.

I remember hearing of an arab muslim who pointed to a new complex and saying that window on the second floor was my bedroom window. The building was less than 5 years old and he had not lived in Israel for 20 years according to him, the window was for the bathroom.


----------



## fanger

Thats rich coming from you, one who never posts a link


----------



## Divine Wind

Coyote said:


> The Palestinians descend from a mix of ancient peoples there, including Jews, and others, as well as later Arabs, so they precede the Arabs.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Jerusalem was founded by the Jews or the authenticity of Masada, etc.
> 
> "First Nations" really doesn't apply to this situation, either to the Jewish people or the Palestinians and ancient history really shouldn't be the determinator of claims to the region imo.


Since religion is cultural, I completely agree about the genealogy and genetic history of the entire region.  

Since "First Nations" doesn't apply here, I suggest the "Possession is nine tenths of the law" rule. 

Let's not forget that many Palestinians left on the promise other Arab nations would quickly steamroll the new nation of Israel into the desert sands and they'd return home once the war was over.  When that didn't happen, those who fled were fucked.   Sadly, the other Arab nations didn't offer many refugee status.


----------



## fanger

Phoenall said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have on the land that they originally came from if less than 100 years ago.
> 
> DNA testing and property title issued by the Ottomans or the British. Waving around a rusty key bought in a market proves nothing, or one of the many thousands that arafat had printed.
> 
> I remember hearing of an arab muslim who pointed to a new complex and saying that window on the second floor was my bedroom window. The building was less than 5 years old and he had not lived in Israel for 20 years according to him, the window was for the bathroom.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Phoenall

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than European colonists driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your genealogical ancestry? Are you going to give up your stake in America to its natives and return to the Old Country?......or does that idea only apply to Jews?
Click to expand...






 Mine is possibly Mycenae, an ancient Celtic tribe that lived in what is now east Anglia. From there it went to a seafaring family that were owners of trading vessels before moving north when the industrial revolution began. They still were ship owners and carried the raw material to the new factories. My maternal grandfather died at sea before I was born.  A shortened version of my ancestory and I still live in Britain


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have on the land that they originally came from if less than 100 years ago.
> 
> DNA testing and property title issued by the Ottomans or the British. Waving around a rusty key bought in a market proves nothing, or one of the many thousands that arafat had printed.
> 
> I remember hearing of an arab muslim who pointed to a new complex and saying that window on the second floor was my bedroom window. The building was less than 5 years old and he had not lived in Israel for 20 years according to him, the window was for the bathroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...







 Go away and learn how to read stupid


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welll not so much. The Arab conquest did not result in a mass Arab migration into the area the Romano-Byzantine landowners were given the choice to convert to Islam or leave and the estates of those who left were taken over by Arab leaders/nobles/officers. The common people weren't given the option to leave and wwere allowed to go on as before so long as they paid "tribute" (taxes). Jerusalem was founded by Hurrians. The dead sea scrolls are religious texts that so far have proved nothing other than JUdaism was around in the Hashmonean period, which we knew already. Masada was built be the Edomite king of Judea and had no significance at all to Jewish people until Zionist historians publicised the siege based on the account of Flavius Josephus (even the mass suicide story is now disputed) No-one really knows exactly where "Solomon's" temple actually stood, so nothing is a clear cut as you'd like it to be.
> 
> At least we can agree that there is no such race as "Jews".
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: _ The Jews have no claim to Israel, but the Palestinians do_.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than European colonists driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.
Click to expand...







 Even if they can show they have genetic links to the people who lived there over 2000 years ago.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians descend from a mix of ancient peoples there, including Jews, and others, as well as later Arabs, so they precede the Arabs.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Jerusalem was founded by the Jews or the authenticity of Masada, etc.
> 
> "First Nations" really doesn't apply to this situation, either to the Jewish people or the Palestinians and ancient history really shouldn't be the determinator of claims to the region imo.
Click to expand...







 And Winston Churchill told the world that the arab muslims were flooding palestine with illegal immigrants, more than all world Jewry could hope to match in his words


----------



## Divine Wind

Phoenall said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than European colonists driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your genealogical ancestry? Are you going to give up your stake in America to its natives and return to the Old Country?......or does that idea only apply to Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine is possibly Mycenae, an ancient Celtic tribe that lived in what is now east Anglia. From there it went to a seafaring family that were owners of trading vessels before moving north when the industrial revolution began. They still were ship owners and carried the raw material to the new factories. My maternal grandfather died at sea before I was born.  A shortened version of my ancestory and I still live in Britain
Click to expand...

Mine is pure American Heinz 57, German name with a lot of Brit and Dutch blood plus other stuff.  My wife and I want to do a genetic ancestry test for our birthdays.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
Click to expand...


I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.

Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.
> 
> COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.
> 
> No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race
Click to expand...


Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians

Why does this close relationship bother you so much?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians descend from a mix of ancient peoples there, including Jews, and others, as well as later Arabs, so they precede the Arabs.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Jerusalem was founded by the Jews or the authenticity of Masada, etc.
> 
> "First Nations" really doesn't apply to this situation, either to the Jewish people or the Palestinians and ancient history really shouldn't be the determinator of claims to the region imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Winston Churchill told the world that the arab muslims were flooding palestine with illegal immigrants, more than all world Jewry could hope to match in his words
Click to expand...


And that means what?  Politicians aren't known for truthiness and there were a lot of agendas going on at that time.  There was illegal Arab immigration and illegal Jewish immigration going on, but not as much as claimed by some.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have on the land that they originally came from if less than 100 years ago.
> 
> DNA testing and property title issued by the Ottomans or the British. Waving around a rusty key bought in a market proves nothing, or one of the many thousands that arafat had printed.
> 
> I remember hearing of an arab muslim who pointed to a new complex and saying that window on the second floor was my bedroom window. The building was less than 5 years old and he had not lived in Israel for 20 years according to him, the window was for the bathroom.
Click to expand...


In otherwords...that means what exactly?  Do they have an inherent right to national self-determination in Palestine....?

DNA testing would prove what exactly?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Historically, Israel reinvented itself.  It is not the same nation that existed 3000 years ago, it's not the same culture,  and even the historical accuracy of some portions of their mythology is unsupported by archaeology or contradicted.  It's a modern nation, and it's rights to exist have or should have nothing to do with ancient history but rather it's existence in the here and now, as the new homeland of a people who have historical ties to that region.  Ironically, the Zionists looked at several different places for the establishment of their new nation, including Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land    NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well.   What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is - nations can be reinvented and recreated based on guesses about ancient history, but they are modern nations.  Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> I'm not claiming that archaeological evidence supports anyone's CLAIMS to anything.  What is it with you guys and reading comprehension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have I ever supported that? Got a link? (Course not)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the time to trawl through thousands of past posts, but you have said that the Jews dont have the right to claim the land and that International laws dont exist when they support the Jews claims.
Click to expand...


You're completely moving the goalposts...first you said this:  _And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed_

Then, when asked for a link, you claim you "don't have time" to find one and reword your claim to:  _Jews dont have the right to claim the land and that International laws dont exist when they support the Jews claims_

You do realize there is a HUGE difference between the two claims.  *Are you now saying your first accusation was false?*

Your second claim has nothing to do with your first - it's possible I would say one or both parts of the second claim, but it is very contextual - depends on what you are talking about.  For example - I have and continue to say there is no right of return beyond the immidiate people who were expelled.  Their progeny has no right of return or claim to the area beyond what they legally purchase or can show proof of ownership for, and if ownership is contested it goes to the courts.


----------



## Divine Wind

Coyote said:


> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?


I fully support the right of all people the unalienable right of self-determination.   When that self-determination involves killing others with suicide belts and rocket attacks, that right is lost to the right of self-defense.


----------



## Coyote

Divine.Wind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right of all people the unalienable right of self-determination.   When that self-determination involves killing others with suicide belts and rocket attacks, that right is lost to the right of self-defense.
Click to expand...


I would simply state when that self determination leads to terrorism or unprovoked attack, it doesn't matter what form it takes.


----------



## Mindful

Who are these people "like Phoenall"?

And what is Phoenall "like"?


----------



## rylah

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.
> 
> COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.
> 
> No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
> The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
> 
> Why does this close relationship bother you so much?
Click to expand...


From the sources of the 'study' you've linked:

"Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin *differed* from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes *not found in the non-Arab groups*."

and the Haaretz just takes for granted that there's a Palestinian people and that they are somehow different from other Arabs, without presenting any basis. 
However for the Jews, they dig in and analyse the long history. When concluding their finding they suddenly take the "Palestinians" out and compare them to the Jews.
Haaretz at its' best. The other site deals with the schism between the Science and Religion and at least calls the Palestinians as they call themselves-Arabs.

But yeah Semites have a genetic connection, however it doesn't mean that Jews and Arabs are the same, or that one Semitic group should get all of ME.


----------



## Mindful

rylah said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.
> 
> COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.
> 
> No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
> The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
> 
> Why does this close relationship bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the sources of the 'study' you've linked:
> 
> "Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin *differed* from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes *not found in the non-Arab groups*."
> 
> and the Haaretz just takes for granted that there's a Palestinian people and that they are somehow different from other Arabs, without presenting any basis.
> However for the Jews, they dig in and analyse the long history. When concluding their finding they suddenly take the "Palestinians" out and compare them to the Jews.
> Haaretz at its' best. The other site deals with the schism between the Science and Religion and at least calls the Palestinians as they call themselves-Arabs.
> 
> But yeah Semites have a genetic connection, however it doesn't mean that Jews and Arabs are the same, or that one Semitic group should get all of ME.
Click to expand...


Who got what was decided by the occupying powers.

And even then it was down to vested interests and a certain amount of in-fighting.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
Click to expand...






Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war. 
 I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.
> 
> COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.
> 
> No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
> The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
> 
> Why does this close relationship bother you so much?
Click to expand...






It doesn't if it was true, but seeing as the same source for the testing is used an has been debunked as faulty by peers in genetics should have you asking questions. Why is the scientist who is not even a geneticist pushing flawed work into the public domain and antagonizing his fellow scientists by causing public spats. They use the simplest of tricks to get the masses behind them, go for a tried and tested group of DNA strands that are very close in all humans and pass them of as an in depth study. When asked to explain the disparity he did a tinmore and ignored the questions. 
 Let me ask you this if you had an infected finger that needed lancing, draining and treated with antibiotics would you go to a back street abortionist or a qualified doctor. In this case would you believe a geneticist or an archeologist ?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians descend from a mix of ancient peoples there, including Jews, and others, as well as later Arabs, so they precede the Arabs.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Jerusalem was founded by the Jews or the authenticity of Masada, etc.
> 
> "First Nations" really doesn't apply to this situation, either to the Jewish people or the Palestinians and ancient history really shouldn't be the determinator of claims to the region imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Winston Churchill told the world that the arab muslims were flooding palestine with illegal immigrants, more than all world Jewry could hope to match in his words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that means what?  Politicians aren't known for truthiness and there were a lot of agendas going on at that time.  There was illegal Arab immigration and illegal Jewish immigration going on, but not as much as claimed by some.
Click to expand...






 It means that team palestine knows the truth and is still lying because it proves the vast majority of arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are illegal immigrants. They know that if they accept the reports of the time from more than one source they dont have an argument. They are afraid to face the truth as it proves they are just Jew haters and racist anti semites allied to nazi's


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have on the land that they originally came from if less than 100 years ago.
> 
> DNA testing and property title issued by the Ottomans or the British. Waving around a rusty key bought in a market proves nothing, or one of the many thousands that arafat had printed.
> 
> I remember hearing of an arab muslim who pointed to a new complex and saying that window on the second floor was my bedroom window. The building was less than 5 years old and he had not lived in Israel for 20 years according to him, the window was for the bathroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In otherwords...that means what exactly?  Do they have an inherent right to national self-determination in Palestine....?
> 
> DNA testing would prove what exactly?
Click to expand...







 That he was  LYING  to gain by fraud something he was not entitled to. Only if they can prove that they lived there prior to 1923, and did not arrive uninvited and illegally. DNA testing would prove their lineage, just as it has done for the majority of Jews returning to Israel. If after 2000 years the DNA is not distinctive of a seperate palestinian genome then it shows they are recent arrivals. The true palestinian arabs are those that already live in Israel as full citizens.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
Click to expand...

Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And palestine the nation did not exist until 1988, when arab muslims from Egypt and Syria declared independence on Jewish land. Yes Israel re-invented itself because it was allowed to so the nazi's had them all in one place at the same time, a pity it did not work as they planned. What archeological evidence supports the arab muslims claim to the land    NOTHING thats what. But there is more archeological evidence for the Jews presence in palestine than there is for your presence in America, and for your first nations peoples presence as well.   What proof do you have for this claim other than from the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda outlets, as that is all I can find. What there was was an effort by certain non Jewish groups to have them set up home in another place other than the holy land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is - nations can be reinvented and recreated based on guesses about ancient history, but they are modern nations.  Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> I'm not claiming that archaeological evidence supports anyone's CLAIMS to anything.  What is it with you guys and reading comprehension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have I ever supported that? Got a link? (Course not)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the time to trawl through thousands of past posts, but you have said that the Jews dont have the right to claim the land and that International laws dont exist when they support the Jews claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're completely moving the goalposts...first you said this:  _And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed_
> 
> Then, when asked for a link, you claim you "don't have time" to find one and reword your claim to:  _Jews dont have the right to claim the land and that International laws dont exist when they support the Jews claims_
> 
> You do realize there is a HUGE difference between the two claims.  *Are you now saying your first accusation was false?*
> 
> Your second claim has nothing to do with your first - it's possible I would say one or both parts of the second claim, but it is very contextual - depends on what you are talking about.  For example - I have and continue to say there is no right of return beyond the immidiate people who were expelled.  Their progeny has no right of return or claim to the area beyond what they legally purchase or can show proof of ownership for, and if ownership is contested it goes to the courts.
Click to expand...







 Two separate claims as you well know, even though the two are linked. The context is International laws passed that affect both Jews and arab muslims that are denied when they work in the Jews favour, yet are accepted when they work in the arab muslims.

This is the same as saying that " _that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed  "_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meat of the argument is this:  you want to use it for a "nation" that ceased to exist thousands of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and imo, that stretches the meaning of it very thin since no one is sure of the history of that era or the peoples within it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could allow almost anyone to the claim first nations status and the special rights that go along with it.  And that is what this is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same as the "who is indiginous" argument - it is used as a means to grant greater rights to one group at the expense of the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It fuels the argument Team Israel makes that the Palestinians are invaders and squatters who have no inherent rights ... and certainly FEWER rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then people immigrating to that region, who's ancesters happened to live there thousands of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
Click to expand...

Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.
> 
> COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.
> 
> No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
> The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
> 
> Why does this close relationship bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't if it was true, but seeing as the same source for the testing is used an has been debunked as faulty by peers in genetics should have you asking questions. Why is the scientist who is not even a geneticist pushing flawed work into the public domain and antagonizing his fellow scientists by causing public spats. They use the simplest of tricks to get the masses behind them, go for a tried and tested group of DNA strands that are very close in all humans and pass them of as an in depth study. When asked to explain the disparity he did a tinmore and ignored the questions.
> Let me ask you this if you had an infected finger that needed lancing, draining and treated with antibiotics would you go to a back street abortionist or a qualified doctor. In this case would you believe a geneticist or an archeologist ?
Click to expand...


There have been *multiple studies on this*, from one of my links:

_Several major studies published in the past five years attest to these ancient hereditary links. At the forefront of these efforts are two researchers: Harry Ostrer, professor of pediatrics and pathology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, and Karl Skorecki, director of medical and research development at the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa. Back in June 2010, and within two days of each other, the two scientists and their research teams published extensive analyses of the genetic origins of the Jewish people and their Near East ancestry. _​

So again, why does it bother you so much?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
Click to expand...


So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area. How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> Nothing is going to insure that some people aren't going to attempt to delegetimize either the Jews or the Palestinians or try to negate their rights. Misusing terms like First Nations, isn't going to change that.
> 
> Recognizing the rights of First Nations or indiginous cultures wasn't supposed to be about granting special rights in an unresolved conflict. It was about protecting indiginous cultures threatened to extinction by the dominant invading culture......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Arabs in the area have history dating back to Muhammad's expansion of Islam in the 7th Century.  Jew's have a more ancient claim to the land as archeological evidence proves.  Is there any doubt Jerusalem was founded by Jews?  That the Dead Sea scrolls are legitimate?  That many of the ancient ruins in Israel such as Masada and Solomon's temple are of Jewish origin?
> 
> There is no such "race" as Palestinian.  They're a culture.  For that matter, there's no such race as Jews either.
> 
> There was never any nation called Palestine.  Ever.  So how can there be a "first nation" status of a country that never existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians descend from a mix of ancient peoples there, including Jews, and others, as well as later Arabs, so they precede the Arabs.  I don't think anyone is disputing that Jerusalem was founded by the Jews or the authenticity of Masada, etc.
> 
> "First Nations" really doesn't apply to this situation, either to the Jewish people or the Palestinians and ancient history really shouldn't be the determinator of claims to the region imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Winston Churchill told the world that the arab muslims were flooding palestine with illegal immigrants, more than all world Jewry could hope to match in his words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that means what?  Politicians aren't known for truthiness and there were a lot of agendas going on at that time.  There was illegal Arab immigration and illegal Jewish immigration going on, but not as much as claimed by some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means that team palestine knows the truth and is still lying because it proves the vast majority of arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are illegal immigrants. They know that if they accept the reports of the time from more than one source they dont have an argument. They are afraid to face the truth as it proves they are just Jew haters and racist anti semites allied to nazi's
Click to expand...


The only thing it means is that Winston Churchill made a claim.  According to the link I posted, while there was SOME illegal Arab immigration, accurate numbers are impossible to know.  There was also illegal Jewish immigration.  It likely balanced out.

Do you think my source is wrong?


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is - nations can be reinvented and recreated based on guesses about ancient history, but they are modern nations.  Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> I'm not claiming that archaeological evidence supports anyone's CLAIMS to anything.  What is it with you guys and reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have I ever supported that? Got a link? (Course not)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the time to trawl through thousands of past posts, but you have said that the Jews dont have the right to claim the land and that International laws dont exist when they support the Jews claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're completely moving the goalposts...first you said this:  _And yet you support the arab muslim view that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed_
> 
> Then, when asked for a link, you claim you "don't have time" to find one and reword your claim to:  _Jews dont have the right to claim the land and that International laws dont exist when they support the Jews claims_
> 
> You do realize there is a HUGE difference between the two claims.  *Are you now saying your first accusation was false?*
> 
> Your second claim has nothing to do with your first - it's possible I would say one or both parts of the second claim, but it is very contextual - depends on what you are talking about.  For example - I have and continue to say there is no right of return beyond the immidiate people who were expelled.  Their progeny has no right of return or claim to the area beyond what they legally purchase or can show proof of ownership for, and if ownership is contested it goes to the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two separate claims as you well know, even though the two are linked. The context is International laws passed that affect both Jews and arab muslims that are denied when they work in the Jews favour, yet are accepted when they work in the arab muslims.
> 
> This is the same as saying that " _that Israel is invalid and should be destroyed  "_
Click to expand...


Total bullshit 

I have never claimed Israel is invalid and should be destroyed.  In fact, I've said multiple times that Israel is here to stay and the Palestinians need to deal with it and work with Israel (and vice versa - the Palestinians aren't going to conveniently disappear either).  Israel's legitimacy is not based on any ancient history or ancient rights but on the fact that they've fourght for and developed a nation, held it for several generations, grown it, and prospered.  Israel's "validity" lies in it's existence, like the US, like many nations -  and since no other country's validity is ever questioned, why should Israel's be?   It absolutely should not be destroyed.

Face it Phoenall, you lied, and now you're trying to get out of it.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> 
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

Let us see your evidence, hero. 
Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.


----------



## Hossfly

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welll not so much. The Arab conquest did not result in a mass Arab migration into the area the Romano-Byzantine landowners were given the choice to convert to Islam or leave and the estates of those who left were taken over by Arab leaders/nobles/officers. The common people weren't given the option to leave and wwere allowed to go on as before so long as they paid "tribute" (taxes). Jerusalem was founded by Hurrians. The dead sea scrolls are religious texts that so far have proved nothing other than JUdaism was around in the Hashmonean period, which we knew already. Masada was built be the Edomite king of Judea and had no significance at all to Jewish people until Zionist historians publicised the siege based on the account of Flavius Josephus (even the mass suicide story is now disputed) No-one really knows exactly where "Solomon's" temple actually stood, so nothing is a clear cut as you'd like it to be.
> 
> At least we can agree that there is no such race as "Jews".
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: _ The Jews have no claim to Israel, but the Palestinians do_.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...


This sounds like Tinmore and his alter ego.

*"No Room for the Zionist Entity in the Region"*
*by Khaled Abu Toameh
August 18, 2016 at 5:00 am*


"The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Wakf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except Jihad." — Hamas Charter.


Hamas's decision to participate in the upcoming local and municipal elections will further strengthen the movement and pave the way for it to extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.


"The Zionist entity will not be part of this region. We will continue to resist it until the liberation of our land and the return of our people." — Musa Abu Marzouk, senior Hamas official.


How precisely Hamas intends to "serve" the Palestinians by running in the elections is somewhat murky. Abu Marzouk did not talk about building new schools and parks for the Palestinians. When he talks about "serving" the people, he means only one thing: recruiting Palestinians to Hamas and jihad against Israel and the Jews.
"No Room for the Zionist Entity in the Region"


----------



## rylah

So convenient to diminish the historic ground when Palestinians have NO history.

Just read the first verse in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and then read the PLO charters.
One can clearly see that Jews went there BECAUSE of their history, and present these facts clearly. While the Arabs keep the stance of "The Palestinian connection is indisputable" with no basis or history to show.

All this is done to legitimize the claim and war crimes of people who want to carve even more of the Jewish land into their caliphate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
Click to expand...

Still nothing, huh?


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> 
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
Click to expand...

It's been presented to you numerous times, Daffy. Now show us your undeniable proof.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> 
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been presented to you numerous times, Daffy. Now show us your undeniable proof.
Click to expand...

Indeed, lots of say so, no proof.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been presented to you numerous times, Daffy. Now show us your undeniable proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, lots of say so, no proof.
Click to expand...


Stop with your silly games.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been presented to you numerous times, Daffy. Now show us your undeniable proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, lots of say so, no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop with your silly games.
Click to expand...

Good example of all the proof I get.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's been presented to you numerous times, Daffy. Now show us your undeniable proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, lots of say so, no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop with your silly games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good example of all the proof I get.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> 
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you or your alter ego  who is helping you out now can contact the Arab Muslim who wrote that article, Tinmore, and let him know you disagree with what he is saying even though it is quite obvious to the readers that you think  that Israel is illegally right in the middle of Palestinian land, even though there never was a country of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> 
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you or your alter ego  who is helping you out now can contact the Arab Muslim who wrote that article, Tinmore, and let him know you disagree with what he is saying even though it is quite obvious to the readers that you think  that Israel is illegally right in the middle of Palestinian land, even though there never was a country of Palestine.
Click to expand...

Again more say so with no proof.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see your evidence, hero.
> Treatys, agreements, signed documents, etc.  You know the drill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you or your alter ego  who is helping you out now can contact the Arab Muslim who wrote that article, Tinmore, and let him know you disagree with what he is saying even though it is quite obvious to the readers that you think  that Israel is illegally right in the middle of Palestinian land, even though there never was a country of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again more say so with no proof.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell us, Tinmore, that it would be against your principles to contact an Arab Muslim journalist to ask him why he wrote what he did?  You can tell him why you disagree and he can write you back to tell you his views on your arguments.


----------



## Divine Wind

Hossfly said:


> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!


Agreed.  The bottom line here is that Hamas, other terrorist organizations and their supporters bent on attacking innocent civilians inside Israel have no credence with the civilized world.   Civilized people know you can't murder your way to respectability.

If the Palestinians in Gaza want peace, they need to be peaceful.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory.  You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Excuse me?  No one is sure of the history of that era?  Or that of the Jewish people?  Compared to which other peoples in the world?  And starting from how long ago?  There is CLEAR archeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites and the nation of Israel (the culture and the nation of the Jewish people).  There is clear evidence of at least the Second Temple, if not the First (and there is probably evidence for the First and more if we were permitted to look).  There is clear evidence of Jerusalem being an important administrative town of the Israelites.  There is physical evidence for a number of named kings and leaders.  There is a written history, as well as an oral one.  One of the few things we DON'T have evidence for is the Exodus -- we have evidence for nearly everything else.
> 
> Its like saying no one is sure of the history of the Chinese people.  Or the Korean people.  Or the Egyptian people.  What kind of evidence to you need to have in order to classify a people as a people and therefore deserving of rights? Why are you not arguing that Korea can't be a nation because no one is sure of the history of that area or the peoples within it?  Convince me that you are applying the SAME criteria universally, because it does not appear that you are.   In fact, you are using the exact same arguments that Challenger and Tinmore and others use to deny rights to the Jewish people, you are just more adept at disguising it.
> 
> Of course that is what this is about!  What special rights do you think are claimed by First Nations peoples?  I think that the special rights of First Nations peoples are the preservation of their sacred spaces; the preservation of their language and culture; the right to practice within their own religious, spiritual realms; the right to self-government; the right to apply their own legal understandings to their activities; the right to access natural resources in order to preserve their way of life.
> 
> As Rocco is constantly telling Tinmore -- rights don't work that way.  Rights (and in this case we are discussing specifically the right to self-determination on ancestral territory) are not a zero sum game.  One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others.  It just does not work that way.  Rights are rights.  They belong to people.  People don't have greater or lesser rights to live or to own a home or to walk through the front door of an establishment or to access medical care or to not be raped.  People just have those rights.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.
> 
> Team Israel makes no such argument (and feel free to tag as many of them as you wish if you would like to ask them and prove me wrong). Indeed, that is projection, as Team Palestine most certainly makes those arguments.
> 
> I did remove the phrase_ in that place_ from your quote.  I did to highlight an extremely relevant point.  No one on Team Palestine is arguing against the inherent rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Never, in all my years of debate on this topic have I ever seen an pro-Israel poster argue that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights to be a "people".  (Oh man, I would be so on that if I saw it).
> 
> I have seen arguments that the Palestinian people (and by that, I mean the Palestinians who are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian and have adopted the Arab culture) are invaders.  I have seen arguments that those Palestinians already have a territory (Jordan).  I have seen arguments that Palestinians are not a distinct enough culture to warrant a self-determination which is seperate from other, very similar cultures.  I've seen lots of arguments about the essential inability of the Palestinians to govern a nation.  But never have I seen the argument that the Palestinian people have no inherent rights.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Yet the anti-Israel argument is that the *Jewish people have no inherent rights*.  Not in Israel.  Not anywhere.  They are erased, non-existent, the rules do not apply to them because they are *not*.
> 
> You have already stated that you do not believe in the right of return.  That's fine.  I have no beef with that.  I disagree, of course.  But its a valid, consistent argument.  Of course, the extension of that belief is that it is perfectly legitimate for the returning Jewish people (or any other people for that matter) to push out the Arab Palestinians.  If invasion transfers rights from one group to another -- it applies just as equally to the Jewish peoples as any other.
> 
> 
> 
> One can not use the existence of one's rights to remove the rights of others. It just does not work that way. Rights are rights. They belong to people.
> 
> So it is ridiculous to argue that my rights erase your rights, or that my rights supercede your rights.​
> That is exactly what the Zionists did. They kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and have denied them their rights ever since.
> 
> The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the big crime by the Israelis was having jobs for the poor Arabs so that they left their impoverished surrounding countries and flooded into Israel.  Look what happens when one country has jobs for non-native people, such as all the Turks in Germany.  It's too bad both Germany and Israel had to import foreign workers because there might be more peace in these countries now.
> 
> The Holy Land: The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground do not match what this guy says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we supposed to believe the facts of  a Hamas supporter who believes that Israel is inside this make-believe country of Palestine?  No .way, José!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same old talk. Same old lack of evidence.
Click to expand...







 So when will you produce the evidence of your claims ?


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites you visit so much, and any evidence that is produced you claim is hasbara or zionist propaganda.
> 
> COWFLOP you erase the history of the Jews existence because it suits your POV, even that provided by the Greek and Roman scholars.  Do you deny the evidence of Stone age man in Britain or bronze age and iron age man. Do you not have neolithic sites close to your home that prove the existence of various cultures. The same time period as the original Israel and the artifacts are better preserved being an arid part of the world. Are you going to deny the Pyramids of Egypt exist because they were built by Jewish slaves.
> 
> No you are arguing that the Jews do not exist because your hate group does not want to admit they have a close DNA match to the original inhabitants. You want the arab muslims to eradicate the Jews for you because you know your group would be arrested and imprisoned if you even talked about doing so yourselves. You have been found out and so ignore the truth hoping to enlist others to your little hate group
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
> The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
> 
> Why does this close relationship bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't if it was true, but seeing as the same source for the testing is used an has been debunked as faulty by peers in genetics should have you asking questions. Why is the scientist who is not even a geneticist pushing flawed work into the public domain and antagonizing his fellow scientists by causing public spats. They use the simplest of tricks to get the masses behind them, go for a tried and tested group of DNA strands that are very close in all humans and pass them of as an in depth study. When asked to explain the disparity he did a tinmore and ignored the questions.
> Let me ask you this if you had an infected finger that needed lancing, draining and treated with antibiotics would you go to a back street abortionist or a qualified doctor. In this case would you believe a geneticist or an archeologist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been *multiple studies on this*, from one of my links:
> 
> _Several major studies published in the past five years attest to these ancient hereditary links. At the forefront of these efforts are two researchers: Harry Ostrer, professor of pediatrics and pathology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, and Karl Skorecki, director of medical and research development at the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa. Back in June 2010, and within two days of each other, the two scientists and their research teams published extensive analyses of the genetic origins of the Jewish people and their Near East ancestry. _​
> 
> So again, why does it bother you so much?
Click to expand...







 Niether are geneticists are they, one a doctor of children, and the other a director of a hospital. You take their word over that of fully qualified and respected Geneticists, simply because they meet with your POV and anti semitism. What bothers me is that you will deny being a Jew hater yet will use the same links only found on the hate sites as your evidence against the Jews rights to 22% of palestine


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
Click to expand...







They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers. 

 Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers.
> 
> Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality
Click to expand...

So the Palestinians who owned orange groves in Jaffa were given Jordan? How does that work?

Links?


----------



## Challenger

Coyote said:


> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination? What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?



Interesting question which I'll have to get back to you about when I have more time


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers.
> 
> Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Palestinians who owned orange groves in Jaffa were given Jordan? How does that work?
> 
> Links?
Click to expand...



Orange groves and other agricultural areas were owned by absentee landlords, and any Palestinian Arabs living there were tenant farmers.


----------



## Challenger

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying a Jewish people did not exist prior to Zionist historians? In this area science does provide genetic evidence of close relationships among the Jewish people. A huge difference from members of proselytizing religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judaism is a religion and of course there were adherants and practicioners of the religion before Zionism emerged, that has never been in doubt, but that's a religious group, not an ethenic one. Judea/Palestine in antiquity was a cosmopolitan area containing several ethicities speaking different languages and having their own customs and religions. Also Judaism *was* a proselytising religion for centuries until supplanted by Christianity and was not above carrying out forced conversions, especially during the Hashmonean period. As for "genetic evidence", the jury is still out on that one, so I'll forego comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never heard it was a proselytising religion - do you have a source for these?
Click to expand...


This is widely known in academic circles and there are several scholarly sources available, sadly not on the web unless you are a member of JSTOR or similar organisations. Look for works by Louis H. Feldman (Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World) and Theodor Mommsen, who asserted in Rome's History vol 6, "...ancient Judaism was not exclusive at all: ir was rather, as keen to propagate itself as Chistianity and later Islam would be." (page 193)

...and just so I don't get inundated with moronic accusations of "Islamo-nazism (whatever that is) and using "hate sites"...

*How was the biblical “stranger” transfigured into the “proselyte”?*

In the Bible, the Hebrew term _ger_ refers to a “resident alien,” but _ger_ later took on the meaning of “a proselyte” (from the Greek _proselytos_ ). The talmudic sages (third century C.E.) stressed the equality of the native-born and the proselyte, citing Exodus 12:49, “One law shall be to him that is home born and to the _ger,_ the sojourner among you,” as well as the teaching (from Mechilta Piska 15) that the proselyte was equal to the native-born Jew with respect to “all the commandments of the Torah.” Once the stranger has, by choice, become a member of the family, he/she is entitled to all its privileges (and burdens).

The rabbis also observed that the precept to love, protect, and not oppress the _ger_ or stranger appears 36 times in the Torah, more often than any other biblical precept. The 12th-century philosopher and talmudist Moses Maimonides thus said: “Our parents are to be honored and obeyed; our prophets are to be heeded; but the proselyte we are bidden to love with a full force of our heart’s affection” (Mishneh Torah, Book I).

*This suggests that Jews must have been actively proselytizing at the time. *

Yes. According to the Jewish historian Salo Baron, in great part because of proselytizing, the number of Jews grew from 150,000 in 586 B.C.E. to eight million in the first century C.E.—at which time they constituted 10% of the Roman Empire! Jews were working very hard then to convert pagans; the Gospel of Matthew reports that Jewish proselytizers traveled over sea and land to make a single proselyte (23:15).

*Why, then, did Jews stop proselytizing gentiles?*

The cessation was imposed by Roman edicts, not rabbinic rulings. In the fourth century C.E., after the empire adopted Christianity as the state religion, Roman emperors made conversion to Judaism a criminal offense, punishable by death of both the proselytizing Jews and the convert. The code of the Roman Emperor Theodosius declared: Any person who “betakes himself to the nefarious sect of Judaism shall sustain with them the deserved punishment of death...” (Theodosius Code 116.8.1, August 13, 339). The Holy Roman Empire hoped to dismantle the Jewish mission to be “a light to the nations” and thus drive a universal faith into a parochial tribalism.

Reform Judaism Magazine - Choosing Judaism: Judaism's Proselytizing Tradition


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers.
> 
> Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Palestinians who owned orange groves in Jaffa were given Jordan? How does that work?
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Orange groves and other agricultural areas were owned by absentee landlords, and any Palestinian Arabs living there were tenant farmers.
Click to expand...






 Jews who owned lands in Jordan were evicted and sent packing across the river to fend for themselves, and their property given to migrants from palestine. Tinny asks how that worked, it was simple the LoN set aside a sum of money to pay compensation to any person that migrated to their section of palestine, because most arab muslims were penniless nomads they recieved nothing


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than European colonists driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your genealogical ancestry? Are you going to give up your stake in America to its natives and return to the Old Country?......or does that idea only apply to Jews?
Click to expand...


Well, I've got blue eyes and fair hair and my family has always lived in the Midlands so I suppose there's a bit of Viking and Ango-saxon in me, I don't have to return to the "old country" I'm there already. It must really be true what they say about Americans and geography


----------



## Challenger

Coyote said:


> It absolutely should not be destroyed.



...but reformed into an inclusive fully democratic state of all it's people, regardless of their religious affilliations.


----------



## rylah

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel completely ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ever existed in the first place. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is very little if any evidence for a "Kingdom of Israel", even less so that it was ever "Jewish" outside of possibly a ruling elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Archeology does support many of the main historical narratives, I have little doubt that there was a kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to use it to ensure that people like Challenger can't erase, deny or reject the historical, spiritual and ancestral ties that the Jewish people have to the territory. You know, like he JUST did by saying that the Jewish people are not a "real" people and therefore have NO RIGHTS to the reconstitution of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm erasing nothing, I'm highlighting the fact that Zionist "historians" invented a "Jewish people" from assorted groups tenuously linked together by a religion. You are arguing in effect that Mormons or Moonies, or Scientologists, are an "ethnic group". If that's the case, move over, the British are coming; according to this crowd, we have more right to Palestine than " the Jewish people" do.  British Israelism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying a Jewish people did not exist prior to Zionist historians? In this area science does provide genetic evidence of close relationships among the Jewish people. A huge difference from members of proselytizing religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judaism is a religion and of course there were adherants and practicioners of the religion before Zionism emerged, that has never been in doubt, but that's a religious group, not an ethenic one. Judea/Palestine in antiquity was a cosmopolitan area containing several ethicities speaking different languages and having their own customs and religions. Also Judaism *was* a proselytising religion for centuries until supplanted by Christianity and was not above carrying out forced conversions, especially during the Hashmonean period. As for "genetic evidence", the jury is still out on that one, so I'll forego comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never heard it was a proselytising religion - do you have a source for these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is widely known in academic circles and there are several scholarly sources available, sadly not on the web unless you are a member of JSTOR or similar organisations. Look for works by Louis H. Feldman (Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World) and Theodor Mommsen, who asserted in Rome's History vol 6, "...ancient Judaism was not exclusive at all: ir was rather, as keen to propagate itself as Chistianity and later Islam would be." (page 193)
> 
> ...and just so I don't get inundated with moronic accusations of "Islamo-nazism (whatever that is) and using "hate sites"...
> 
> *How was the biblical “stranger” transfigured into the “proselyte”?*
> 
> In the Bible, the Hebrew term _ger_ refers to a “resident alien,” but _ger_ later took on the meaning of “a proselyte” (from the Greek _proselytos_ ). The talmudic sages (third century C.E.) stressed the equality of the native-born and the proselyte, citing Exodus 12:49, “One law shall be to him that is home born and to the _ger,_ the sojourner among you,” as well as the teaching (from Mechilta Piska 15) that the proselyte was equal to the native-born Jew with respect to “all the commandments of the Torah.” Once the stranger has, by choice, become a member of the family, he/she is entitled to all its privileges (and burdens).
> 
> The rabbis also observed that the precept to love, protect, and not oppress the _ger_ or stranger appears 36 times in the Torah, more often than any other biblical precept. The 12th-century philosopher and talmudist Moses Maimonides thus said: “Our parents are to be honored and obeyed; our prophets are to be heeded; but the proselyte we are bidden to love with a full force of our heart’s affection” (Mishneh Torah, Book I).
> 
> *This suggests that Jews must have been actively proselytizing at the time. *
> 
> Yes. According to the Jewish historian Salo Baron, in great part because of proselytizing, the number of Jews grew from 150,000 in 586 B.C.E. to eight million in the first century C.E.—at which time they constituted 10% of the Roman Empire! Jews were working very hard then to convert pagans; the Gospel of Matthew reports that Jewish proselytizers traveled over sea and land to make a single proselyte (23:15).
> 
> *Why, then, did Jews stop proselytizing gentiles?*
> 
> The cessation was imposed by Roman edicts, not rabbinic rulings. In the fourth century C.E., after the empire adopted Christianity as the state religion, Roman emperors made conversion to Judaism a criminal offense, punishable by death of both the proselytizing Jews and the convert. The code of the Roman Emperor Theodosius declared: Any person who “betakes himself to the nefarious sect of Judaism shall sustain with them the deserved punishment of death...” (Theodosius Code 116.8.1, August 13, 339). The Holy Roman Empire hoped to dismantle the Jewish mission to be “a light to the nations” and thus drive a universal faith into a parochial tribalism.
> 
> Reform Judaism Magazine - Choosing Judaism: Judaism's Proselytizing Tradition
Click to expand...


Reform Judaism has a clear Frankist agenda of sabotage  and little in common with the Traditional Judaism, practiced for centuries, what Moses Maimonides practiced as well.

The most basic thing they conveniently "forgot" to mention-
there're 2 kinds of totally different 'ger':

1. "Ger toshav": a person who lives with the Jews and accepts the 7 Noahide laws, this is NOT conversion but an "etiquette".

2. 'Ger zedek': a persons who becomes fully Jewish after being rejected a couple of times, taking upon himself to keep all the 613 commandments.

Who would be so crazy, living in Rome to take all this responsibility when unnecessary, when your culture brings so much pleasure to life?


The fact that you know so little about our culture just proves further that Judaism isn't about spreading or converting others. As the fact that you think that Judaism is a religion, only shows you haven't a clue, the only way for you can think of Judaism is in Christian terms...

To talk about Judaism, read Maimonides not some garbage in a newspaper.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Well, I've got blue eyes and fair hair and my family has always lived in the Midlands so I suppose there's a bit of Viking and Ango-saxon in me, I don't have to return to the "old country" I'm there already. It must really be true what they say about Americans and geography


Translation: _ I"m of Nordic and European descent, but I have no intention of ever giving up my property in the Americas.  Fuck the Goddamn fucking Indians_!

Thanks, got it.  So your attack on "European colonists" only applies if they are Jews.  Interesting.  Two-faced, hypocritical and completely bigoted, but still it's an interesting perspective you have.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've got blue eyes and fair hair and my family has always lived in the Midlands so I suppose there's a bit of Viking and Ango-saxon in me, I don't have to return to the "old country" I'm there already. It must really be true what they say about Americans and geography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: _ I"m of Nordic and European descent, but I have no intention of ever giving up my property in the Americas.  Fuck the Goddamn fucking Indians_!
> 
> Thanks, got it.  So your attack on "European colonists" only applies if they are Jews.  Interesting.  Two-faced, hypocritical and completely bigoted, but still it's an interesting perspective you have.
Click to expand...


Not only Geography, but basic comprehension, it seems. 

If you want to take this to another more suitable forum, I'll happily discuss the brutal suppression, disposession and genocide of the native Americans by European Colonists. Perhaps that's why you support the Zionist colonists so much, two peas in a pod. Oh, FWIW, if it were up to me, I'd give America back to it's native population in an instant, but that's a topic for another forum and another time.


----------



## Challenger

rylah said:


> Reform Judaism has a clear Frankist agenda of sabotage and little in common with the Traditional Judaism, practiced for centuries, what Moses Maimonides practiced as well.



YES!! Result! As expected, some Zionut ignored the question I was answering and instead went off on an irrelevant rant against Reform Judaism.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Not only Geography, but basic comprehension, it seems...


Given your choice of maps and posts, we can agree on your talents...or lack thereof.



Challenger said:


> FWIW, if it were up to me, I'd give America back to it's native population in an instant, but that's a topic for another forum and another time.


Easy to say but, of course, you don't plan on giving anything you own back to the natives nor do you plan on moving back to Northern Europe, amirite?  So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?  Is it because you are a fucking liar?  A hypocrite?  Or, as we just discussed above, you are geography and basic comprehension challenged?  

Latest Population Statistics for Israel | Jewish Virtual Library
_The Jewish population makes up 6,377,000 (74.8%); 1,771,000 (20.8%) are Arabs; and, those identified as "others" (non-Arab Christians, Baha'i, etc) make up 4.4% of the population (374,000 people). When the state was established, there were only 806,000 residents and the total population reached its first and second millions in 1949 and 1958 respectively. Judging by current population trend data, experts predict that the population of Israel will reach 10 million by 2025 or sooner.....

......In 2014, *75% of the total Jewish population were "Sabras" - born in Israel* - compared with just a 35% native-born population at Israel's independence in 1948. 38.6% of the Jewish population are Israeli-born to at least one parent who was also Israeli-born._


----------



## rylah

Challenger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reform Judaism has a clear Frankist agenda of sabotage and little in common with the Traditional Judaism, practiced for centuries, what Moses Maimonides practiced as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! Result! As expected, some Zionut ignored the question I was answering and instead went off on an irrelevant rant against Reform Judaism.
Click to expand...


Your sources, upon which you based your answers, are biased bs.
As usual. 

How convenient to ignore the facts in my post when they're directly attacking your answer.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely should not be destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...but reformed into an inclusive fully democratic state of all it's people, regardless of their religious affilliations.
Click to expand...







 So you can party everytime a Jew is murdered by the state, because they are 4th class slaves of the muslim overlords


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reform Judaism has a clear Frankist agenda of sabotage and little in common with the Traditional Judaism, practiced for centuries, what Moses Maimonides practiced as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! Result! As expected, some Zionut ignored the question I was answering and instead went off on an irrelevant rant against Reform Judaism.
Click to expand...







 Once again rat boy lets down his guard and shows he is an out and out rabid Jew hater, resorting to the new profanity that is already worn out. Should we call him a neo marxist moron for believing all that the Unions and Corbyn tell him about the Jews ?


----------



## Phoenall

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only Geography, but basic comprehension, it seems...
> 
> 
> 
> Given your choice of maps and posts, we can agree on your talents...or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, if it were up to me, I'd give America back to it's native population in an instant, but that's a topic for another forum and another time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy to say but, of course, you don't plan on giving anything you own back to the natives nor do you plan on moving back to Northern Europe, amirite?  So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?  Is it because you are a fucking liar?  A hypocrite?  Or, as we just discussed above, you are geography and basic comprehension challenged?
> 
> Latest Population Statistics for Israel | Jewish Virtual Library
> _The Jewish population makes up 6,377,000 (74.8%); 1,771,000 (20.8%) are Arabs; and, those identified as "others" (non-Arab Christians, Baha'i, etc) make up 4.4% of the population (374,000 people). When the state was established, there were only 806,000 residents and the total population reached its first and second millions in 1949 and 1958 respectively. Judging by current population trend data, experts predict that the population of Israel will reach 10 million by 2025 or sooner.....
> 
> ......In 2014, *75% of the total Jewish population were "Sabras" - born in Israel* - compared with just a 35% native-born population at Israel's independence in 1948. 38.6% of the Jewish population are Israeli-born to at least one parent who was also Israeli-born._
Click to expand...







 It is simple why he says the Jews are European colonists, without that to support his racism he would be facing another long term in prison under English law. If he asked his Lawyer if his words on here were racist he would get a shock and be a little less abrasive in his future posts, and also stop making up words as he does not look clever when another moron uses them


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home
Click to expand...

There was no land transfers to the Jews.


> and the arab muslims are there illegally.


I don't know about your arab muslim propaganda shtick. The Palestinians were Muslims, Christians, and Jews. They became Palestinian citizens according to international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.


> That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places.


The UN has no authority over land or borders.


> have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote,


According to the international law of state succession, all Palestinian citizens who lived in the territory that became Israel shall become Israeli citizens. This would include the refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond. They all have the right to vote in Israel.


> and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> According to the international law of state succession, all Palestinian citizens who lived in the territory that became Israel shall become Israeli citizens...



Defend.  What international laws are you using here?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the international law of state succession, all Palestinian citizens who lived in the territory that became Israel shall become Israeli citizens...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defend.  What international laws are you using here?
Click to expand...

In the second part of Article 18, the Harvard Research on Nationality provided: “When a part of the territory of a state... becomes the territory of a new state, the nationals of the first state who continue their habitual residence in such territory lose the nationality of that state and become nationals of the successor state, in the absence of treaty provisions to the contrary...”.

It is interesting to note that seventy years later, the International Law Commission (ILC) adopted a similar provision: “Persons concerned having their habitual residence in the territory affected by the succession of States are presumed to acquire the nationality of the successor State on the date of such succession.

Moreover, Israel law cannot alter, as Kattan himself observed, a rule of international law, particularly the law of state succession, which obliges the successor state (Israel) to confer ipso facto its nationality on citizens of the predecessor state (Palestine)

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the international law of state succession, all Palestinian citizens who lived in the territory that became Israel shall become Israeli citizens...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defend.  What international laws are you using here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the second part of Article 18, the Harvard Research on Nationality provided: “When a part of the territory of a state... becomes the territory of a new state, the nationals of the first state who continue their habitual residence in such territory lose the nationality of that state and become nationals of the successor state, in the absence of treaty provisions to the contrary...”.
> 
> It is interesting to note that seventy years later, the International Law Commission (ILC) adopted a similar provision: “Persons concerned having their habitual residence in the territory affected by the succession of States are presumed to acquire the nationality of the successor State on the date of such succession.
> 
> Moreover, Israel law cannot alter, as Kattan himself observed, a rule of international law, particularly the law of state succession, which obliges the successor state (Israel) to confer ipso facto its nationality on citizens of the predecessor state (Palestine)
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
Click to expand...



I'll take a look at your link.  But three initial comments:

1.  This is an opinion of law, rather than quoting the law which you are using to support your argument.

2.  This depends on accepting the concept that Israel is the successor State in ALL of the territory.  

3.  This depends on no other factors coming into play.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

Please clarify.  According to your argument the successor State to Turkey was what?  And at what date?  Have there been any changes in sovereignty since?  If so, to which States and on which dates and through which laws or treaties?  

(I'm still weeding through your 348 page link.  Its interesting, though apparently irrelevant to the conversation so far.)


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> Please clarify.  According to your argument the successor State to Turkey was what?  And at what date?  Have there been any changes in sovereignty since?  If so, to which States and on which dates and through which laws or treaties?
> 
> (I'm still weeding through your 348 page link.  Its interesting, though apparently irrelevant to the conversation so far.)


*1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens*

Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
This is what Article 1, Clause (1) , of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.

This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”. Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no land transfers to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> and the arab muslims are there illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about your arab muslim propaganda shtick. The Palestinians were Muslims, Christians, and Jews. They became Palestinian citizens according to international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN has no authority over land or borders.
> 
> 
> 
> have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the international law of state succession, all Palestinian citizens who lived in the territory that became Israel shall become Israeli citizens. This would include the refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond. They all have the right to vote in Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no land transfers to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> and the arab muslims are there illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about your arab muslim propaganda shtick. The Palestinians were Muslims, Christians, and Jews. They became Palestinian citizens according to international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN has no authority over land or borders.
> 
> 
> 
> have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the international law of state succession, all Palestinian citizens who lived in the territory that became Israel shall become Israeli citizens. This would include the refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond. They all have the right to vote in Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...








You keep repeating this mantra yet refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim. The Mandate of Palestine clearly and distinctly says that there was, and you ignore the fact at your peril.

Only those that were there in 1923 and the Jews that were invited after that date, This makes 90% of the arab muslims illegal immigrants


Correct and still they carved up the land granted to the Jews by the Sovereign owners to give to illegal immigrants in return for saudi oil.

 Because they are not citizens of Israel but of palestine the illegal nation. By your criteria the USA is also apartheid because it does not allow arab muslims the vote. Do you understand yet that you are just making a bigger fool of yourself by repeating the lies on the hate sites.

 Not according to the international law of 1923 that you accept when it worls for the arab muslims. When did this alleged law of yours come into existence then. Does it also mean they can murder the Jews to take control of the land, or is that not allowed in your alleged law.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the international law of state succession, all Palestinian citizens who lived in the territory that became Israel shall become Israeli citizens...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defend.  What international laws are you using here?
Click to expand...







 One's he has just made up or found on the hate sites of course


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the international law of state succession, all Palestinian citizens who lived in the territory that became Israel shall become Israeli citizens...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defend.  What international laws are you using here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the second part of Article 18, the Harvard Research on Nationality provided: “When a part of the territory of a state... becomes the territory of a new state, the nationals of the first state who continue their habitual residence in such territory lose the nationality of that state and become nationals of the successor state, in the absence of treaty provisions to the contrary...”.
> 
> It is interesting to note that seventy years later, the International Law Commission (ILC) adopted a similar provision: “Persons concerned having their habitual residence in the territory affected by the succession of States are presumed to acquire the nationality of the successor State on the date of such succession.
> 
> Moreover, Israel law cannot alter, as Kattan himself observed, a rule of international law, particularly the law of state succession, which obliges the successor state (Israel) to confer ipso facto its nationality on citizens of the predecessor state (Palestine)
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
Click to expand...







 Should have guessed it was this islamonazi propagandist who alters treaties, laws and resolutions to suit his own ends just so he can attack the Jews. The BLOOD LIBELS are running thick and fast today.



 So what is the INTERNATIONAL LAW that you are quoting as your link does not show one ?    Harvard research is not INTERNATIONAL LAW it is just one persons views


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> Please clarify.  According to your argument the successor State to Turkey was what?  And at what date?  Have there been any changes in sovereignty since?  If so, to which States and on which dates and through which laws or treaties?
> 
> (I'm still weeding through your 348 page link.  Its interesting, though apparently irrelevant to the conversation so far.)









 It is his usual link to a muslim that alters laws, treaties and resolutions to meet his Jew hatred. He has been told thousands of times that it is not a valid source and still he insists on using it. He has 3 outlets for the same persons report and uses them as if they are seperate sources.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Please clarify.  According to your argument the successor State to Turkey was what?  And at what date?  Have there been any changes in sovereignty since?  If so, to which States and on which dates and through which laws or treaties?
> 
> (I'm still weeding through your 348 page link.  Its interesting, though apparently irrelevant to the conversation so far.)
> 
> 
> 
> *1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens*
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> This is what Article 1, Clause (1) , of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.
> 
> This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”. Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
Click to expand...







And not the 3 million that arrived after this date as illegal immigrants. Then the LoN in conjuction with the Jordanians enacted an international law that made it illegal for Jews to live in trans Jordan and for arab muslims to live in the Jewish national home.    Why do you only accept the first part and not the second ?


You do realise that is only applied until the land was declared a state and independent of the Mandate dont you, the part your islamonazi propagandist friend always ignores




 The order in full



THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY NOW THEREFORE, HIS MAJESTY

By virtue and in exercise of the powers in his behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890, or otherwise, in His Majesty vested , is pleased by and with the advice of His Privy Council to order , and it is ordered as follows:-

PART 1.

1.

(1) Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August 1924 shall become Palestine citizens.

(2) Any person over eighteen years of age who by virtue of this Article becomes a Palestinian citizen may [...]

(3) Any person over eighteen years of age who by virtue of clause (1) of this Article becomes a Palestinian citizen and differs in race from the majority of the population of Palestine may in the like manner and subject to the same conditions opt for the nationality of one of the States in which the majority of the population is of the same race as the person exercising the right to opt subject to the consent of that State and he shall thereupon cease to be a Palestinian citizen.

Article 21: Definitions

For the purpose of this Order:

1. The expression “Palestine” includes the territories to which the mandate for Palestine applies, except such parts of the territories comprised in Palestine to the east of Jordan and the Dead Sea as were defined by Order of the High Commissioner dated the first of September 1922.

2. The expression “Palestinian citizen” means a person who is by birth or becomes by naturalisation of otherwise a Palestinian citizen.

SCHEDULE OATH OF ALLeGIANCE

I, A.B., Swear by Almighty God that I will be Faithful and Loyal to the Government of Palestine".





 This means all those arab muslims that took Jordanian and Egyptian citizenship are no longer palestinians , reducing their numbers by at least 3 million.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Please clarify.  According to your argument the successor State to Turkey was what?  And at what date?  Have there been any changes in sovereignty since?  If so, to which States and on which dates and through which laws or treaties?
> 
> (I'm still weeding through your 348 page link.  Its interesting, though apparently irrelevant to the conversation so far.)
> 
> 
> 
> *1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens*
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> This is what Article 1, Clause (1) , of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.
> 
> This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”. Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not the 3 million that arrived after this date as illegal immigrants. Then the LoN in conjuction with the Jordanians enacted an international law that made it illegal for Jews to live in trans Jordan and for arab muslims to live in the Jewish national home.    Why do you only accept the first part and not the second ?
> 
> 
> You do realise that is only applied until the land was declared a state and independent of the Mandate dont you, the part your islamonazi propagandist friend always ignores
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The order in full
> 
> 
> 
> THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY NOW THEREFORE, HIS MAJESTY
> 
> By virtue and in exercise of the powers in his behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890, or otherwise, in His Majesty vested , is pleased by and with the advice of His Privy Council to order , and it is ordered as follows:-
> 
> PART 1.
> 
> 1.
> 
> (1) Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August 1924 shall become Palestine citizens.
> 
> (2) Any person over eighteen years of age who by virtue of this Article becomes a Palestinian citizen may [...]
> 
> (3) Any person over eighteen years of age who by virtue of clause (1) of this Article becomes a Palestinian citizen and differs in race from the majority of the population of Palestine may in the like manner and subject to the same conditions opt for the nationality of one of the States in which the majority of the population is of the same race as the person exercising the right to opt subject to the consent of that State and he shall thereupon cease to be a Palestinian citizen.
> 
> Article 21: Definitions
> 
> For the purpose of this Order:
> 
> 1. The expression “Palestine” includes the territories to which the mandate for Palestine applies, except such parts of the territories comprised in Palestine to the east of Jordan and the Dead Sea as were defined by Order of the High Commissioner dated the first of September 1922.
> 
> 2. The expression “Palestinian citizen” means a person who is by birth or becomes by naturalisation of otherwise a Palestinian citizen.
> 
> SCHEDULE OATH OF ALLeGIANCE
> 
> I, A.B., Swear by Almighty God that I will be Faithful and Loyal to the Government of Palestine".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This means all those arab muslims that took Jordanian and Egyptian citizenship are no longer palestinians , reducing their numbers by at least 3 million.
Click to expand...

In 1922 Britain occupied Turkish territory. In 1924 Britain was the Mandate of Palestine.

Occupations and Mandates have two different rules.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Please clarify.  According to your argument the successor State to Turkey was what?  And at what date?  Have there been any changes in sovereignty since?  If so, to which States and on which dates and through which laws or treaties?
> 
> (I'm still weeding through your 348 page link.  Its interesting, though apparently irrelevant to the conversation so far.)
> 
> 
> 
> *1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens*
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> This is what Article 1, Clause (1) , of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.
> 
> This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”. Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not the 3 million that arrived after this date as illegal immigrants. Then the LoN in conjuction with the Jordanians enacted an international law that made it illegal for Jews to live in trans Jordan and for arab muslims to live in the Jewish national home.    Why do you only accept the first part and not the second ?
> 
> 
> You do realise that is only applied until the land was declared a state and independent of the Mandate dont you, the part your islamonazi propagandist friend always ignores
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The order in full
> 
> 
> 
> THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY NOW THEREFORE, HIS MAJESTY
> 
> By virtue and in exercise of the powers in his behalf by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890, or otherwise, in His Majesty vested , is pleased by and with the advice of His Privy Council to order , and it is ordered as follows:-
> 
> PART 1.
> 
> 1.
> 
> (1) Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August 1924 shall become Palestine citizens.
> 
> (2) Any person over eighteen years of age who by virtue of this Article becomes a Palestinian citizen may [...]
> 
> (3) Any person over eighteen years of age who by virtue of clause (1) of this Article becomes a Palestinian citizen and differs in race from the majority of the population of Palestine may in the like manner and subject to the same conditions opt for the nationality of one of the States in which the majority of the population is of the same race as the person exercising the right to opt subject to the consent of that State and he shall thereupon cease to be a Palestinian citizen.
> 
> Article 21: Definitions
> 
> For the purpose of this Order:
> 
> 1. The expression “Palestine” includes the territories to which the mandate for Palestine applies, except such parts of the territories comprised in Palestine to the east of Jordan and the Dead Sea as were defined by Order of the High Commissioner dated the first of September 1922.
> 
> 2. The expression “Palestinian citizen” means a person who is by birth or becomes by naturalisation of otherwise a Palestinian citizen.
> 
> SCHEDULE OATH OF ALLeGIANCE
> 
> I, A.B., Swear by Almighty God that I will be Faithful and Loyal to the Government of Palestine".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This means all those arab muslims that took Jordanian and Egyptian citizenship are no longer palestinians , reducing their numbers by at least 3 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1922 Britain occupied Turkish territory. In 1924 Britain was the Mandate of Palestine.
> 
> Occupations and Mandates have two different rules.
Click to expand...







 Wrong you are confusing your self again  Britain occupied conquered lands as the international law of that time allowed, it became the MANDATORY ELECTED POWER to administer the LoN Mandate of Palestine under very strict rules.

 Once again you try and use recent laws retrospectively, will you impose a cut of date before or after the land you live on was stolen ?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Please clarify.  According to your argument the successor State to Turkey was what?  And at what date?  Have there been any changes in sovereignty since?  If so, to which States and on which dates and through which laws or treaties?
> 
> (I'm still weeding through your 348 page link.  Its interesting, though apparently irrelevant to the conversation so far.)
> 
> 
> 
> *1. From Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens*
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.​
> This is what Article 1, Clause (1) , of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order declared with regard to those persons who formed, according to domestic law, the first ‘Palestinians’. As already concluded in Chapter III above, the ‘Palestinian people’ had been defined according to international law on 6 August 1924, the date at which the Treaty of Lausanne was enforced. Hence, the just quoted clause was a mere declaration of pre-existing international law.
> 
> This clause refers to the automatic, or ipso facto, acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by those persons resident in Palestine who had replaced their former Turkish, or Ottoman, nationality. Although the term ‘ipso facto’ is not literally employed, it should be easily understood as the clause is a direct application of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, 1923, which stated that “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which... is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto... nationals...”. Thus, Turkish individuals who were covered by this clause became Palestinians by the operation of law without further action.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
Click to expand...



So help me out here.  Where are you going with all this?  

Ottoman subjects became citizens of a sovereign State of Palestine in 1925.  Then Palestine subjects became citizens of Israel in 1948?  Or should have become citizens of Israel in 1948?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

Okay.  I get you now.  You are saying that since Israel is sovereign over the whole territory (as it was never divided) -- all of the former citizens of "Palestine" are, or should be Israeli citizens.  And the reasoning behind this argument is that they would have been rendered Stateless and a new sovereign is obligated to grant citizenship to all its citizens.   

So more questions:  

You think Jordanian citizenship is irrelevant, because Jordan had no legal claim over territory west of the river, yes?  

What happened in 1988 when Palestine declared independence?  How did that affect citizenship?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> Okay.  I get you now.  You are saying that since Israel is sovereign over the whole territory (as it was never divided) -- all of the former citizens of "Palestine" are, or should be Israeli citizens.  And the reasoning behind this argument is that they would have been rendered Stateless and a new sovereign is obligated to grant citizenship to all its citizens.


That only applies to the Palestinians who lived in the territory that became Israel.



> So more questions:
> 
> You think Jordanian citizenship is irrelevant, because Jordan had no legal claim over territory west of the river, yes?


Jordan never had legal sovereignty over the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world considered the West Bank occupied territory.



> What happened in 1988 when Palestine declared independence?  How did that affect citizenship?


1988 is way late in the game. you can't unscramble that egg from there. You have to go back to the roots.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

Ah.  So you are just trying to put an Israeli citizenship spin on the RoR.  Gotcha.


----------



## Shusha

But you can most certainly unscramble that egg from here.  Palestinians become citizens of Palestine.  Easy peasy.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

You think the residents of Gaza should become Israeli citizens under Israeli sovereignty?  Doesn't that come into conflict with their right to self-determination?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> Ah.  So you are just trying to put an Israeli citizenship spin on the RoR.  Gotcha.


I am just pointing out what the law says.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Okay.  I get you now.  You are saying that since Israel is sovereign over the whole territory (as it was never divided) -- all of the former citizens of "Palestine" are, or should be Israeli citizens.  And the reasoning behind this argument is that they would have been rendered Stateless and a new sovereign is obligated to grant citizenship to all its citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> That only applies to the Palestinians who lived in the territory that became Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So more questions:
> 
> You think Jordanian citizenship is irrelevant, because Jordan had no legal claim over territory west of the river, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan never had legal sovereignty over the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world considered the West Bank occupied territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened in 1988 when Palestine declared independence?  How did that affect citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1988 is way late in the game. you can't unscramble that egg from there. You have to go back to the roots.
Click to expand...








Before a certain date, any that came after or were born later dont have a claim do they according to your cut and paste


 When did it become illegal, what date and give a link to show this.  A pity that the UN made no moves to take the corpus separatum away from the Jordanians. And the arab muslims residing there accepted Jordans rule and became full citizens, until they were made stateless which is illegal

Is it, then explain why this is the first time a nation of palestine existed legally. albeit on stolen lands


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> Ah.  So you are just trying to put an Israeli citizenship spin on the RoR.  Gotcha.







 He is also trying to say that international law that gave rights to the Jordanians did not give rights to the Israelis because that would destroy his whole argument. The mandate of Palestine evolved over the years and was altered to suit the demands of the arab muslims, apart from the granting of 22% to the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Ah.  So you are just trying to put an Israeli citizenship spin on the RoR.  Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what the law says.
Click to expand...







 What law as this law does not exist.  What you are doing is trying to do is alter the terms to suit your islamonazi stance so that Israel will disappear and the Jews will be wiped out


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Ah.  So you are just trying to put an Israeli citizenship spin on the RoR.  Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what the law says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What law as this law does not exist.  What you are doing is trying to do is alter the terms to suit your islamonazi stance so that Israel will disappear and the Jews will be wiped out
Click to expand...


Can you figure out why this  is even up for discussion?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Ah.  So you are just trying to put an Israeli citizenship spin on the RoR.  Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what the law says.
Click to expand...



In point of fact, you are not.  You provided a link to an opinion of the law, and neither you nor that opinion provided the actual law(s) you are using to support your argument.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

I have been unable to find any law prior to 1948 which might apply as you wish it to apply.  You have made a claim, the onus is upon you to provide support for your claim.  If you can't or won't, I will assume you are unable to.

However, I would also like to point out that if, as you claim, Palestine was a legitimate State capable of having citizens, then the people in question would not be stateless, but would continue to be Palestinian citizens.  Which is what they should be to end the conflict anyway.


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Ah.  So you are just trying to put an Israeli citizenship spin on the RoR.  Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what the law says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What law as this law does not exist.  What you are doing is trying to do is alter the terms to suit your islamonazi stance so that Israel will disappear and the Jews will be wiped out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you figure out why this  is even up for discussion?
Click to expand...






 Yep so tinman can say he has spread the lie as instructed by his imam. They more he tells it the more people like penny will believe it and claim that the Jews are breaching international law.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Ah.  So you are just trying to put an Israeli citizenship spin on the RoR.  Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> I am just pointing out what the law says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In point of fact, you are not.  You provided a link to an opinion of the law, and neither you nor that opinion provided the actual law(s) you are using to support your argument.
Click to expand...







 But it is an islamic opinion of the law so it must be a real international law as they are the only people allowed to introduce them


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers.
> 
> Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Palestinians who owned orange groves in Jaffa were given Jordan? How does that work?
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Orange groves and other agricultural areas were owned by absentee landlords, and any Palestinian Arabs living there were tenant farmers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews who owned lands in Jordan were evicted and sent packing across the river to fend for themselves, and their property given to migrants from palestine. Tinny asks how that worked, it was simple the LoN set aside a sum of money to pay compensation to any person that migrated to their section of palestine, because most arab muslims were penniless nomads they recieved nothing
Click to expand...



Interestingly....Israel created very restrictive "absentee landowner laws" in order to more easily confiscate Palestinian land....those laws made it extremely hard for Palestinians to reclaim lost property....and extremely easy for Jews to reclaim lost property....


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like people like Phoenall claim the Palestinians have no historical or ancestral ties to the area.  How he says Palestinians were invented in 1960 something and how they aren't a real people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers.
> 
> Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality
Click to expand...


You give yourself away.

You don't support self determination, you support shipping them off to Jordan, even though most did not come from there.

You're no different then those who feel the Jews don't deserve self determination and should be shipped back to Europe where manny illegally immigrated from in order to increase their numbers.


----------



## Coyote

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians have a close DNA match to Jews, closer in fact then some of the diaspora groups and arabs.  That data does not come from a hate site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
> The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
> 
> Why does this close relationship bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't if it was true, but seeing as the same source for the testing is used an has been debunked as faulty by peers in genetics should have you asking questions. Why is the scientist who is not even a geneticist pushing flawed work into the public domain and antagonizing his fellow scientists by causing public spats. They use the simplest of tricks to get the masses behind them, go for a tried and tested group of DNA strands that are very close in all humans and pass them of as an in depth study. When asked to explain the disparity he did a tinmore and ignored the questions.
> Let me ask you this if you had an infected finger that needed lancing, draining and treated with antibiotics would you go to a back street abortionist or a qualified doctor. In this case would you believe a geneticist or an archeologist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been *multiple studies on this*, from one of my links:
> 
> _Several major studies published in the past five years attest to these ancient hereditary links. At the forefront of these efforts are two researchers: Harry Ostrer, professor of pediatrics and pathology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, and Karl Skorecki, director of medical and research development at the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa. Back in June 2010, and within two days of each other, the two scientists and their research teams published extensive analyses of the genetic origins of the Jewish people and their Near East ancestry. _​
> 
> So again, why does it bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niether are geneticists are they, one a doctor of children, and the other a director of a hospital. You take their word over that of fully qualified and respected Geneticists, simply because they meet with your POV and anti semitism. What bothers me is that you will deny being a Jew hater yet will use the same links only found on the hate sites as your evidence against the Jews rights to 22% of palestine
Click to expand...



One of the referenced research articles was by Harry Ostrer and Karl Skorecki:  Their findings were presented in the Journal of Human Genetics.
Harry Ostrer, M.D.   Harry Ostrer, M.D. | Albert Einstein College of Medicine  is a geneticist, who's research profiles include genetics, the genetic basis of common and rare disorders and Jewish genetics.  His training was in Pediatrics and Medical Genetics.

Karl Skorecki, M.D.  Request Rejected
The Rappaport Institute Publications- Karl Skorecki, MD
His research areas and training are in genetics, and quite considerable body of publications.  He also happens to be Jewish.

Those are just two of them.  Given their credentials, they are fully qualified and respected geneticists so yes, I do take their word.

*Why do call them anti-semitic?  Why is genetic research showing a close relationship between Palestinians and Jews "anti-semitic"?  *


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers.
> 
> Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Palestinians who owned orange groves in Jaffa were given Jordan? How does that work?
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Orange groves and other agricultural areas were owned by absentee landlords, and any Palestinian Arabs living there were tenant farmers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews who owned lands in Jordan were evicted and sent packing across the river to fend for themselves, and their property given to migrants from palestine. Tinny asks how that worked, it was simple the LoN set aside a sum of money to pay compensation to any person that migrated to their section of palestine, because most arab muslims were penniless nomads they recieved nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly....Israel created very restrictive "absentee landowner laws" in order to more easily confiscate Palestinian land....those laws made it extremely hard for Palestinians to reclaim lost property....and extremely easy for Jews to reclaim lost property....
Click to expand...







Any different to the laws passed by Jordan in 1949 doing the same to the Jews. Only they forcibly evicted the Jews from their property murdering many in the process and then stole their lands. Strangely enough the same lands that are now Jewish settlements in the west bank.
ONCE AGAIN SHOWING YOUR HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE STANDARDS WHEN IT COMES TO JEWISH RIGHTS




 By the way no different to the US laws on the same subject, so when you complain about Israel you are also being disrespectful to America


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that what Phoenall is saying is the same thing as what Challenger is saying. Let's ask.
> 
> Phoenall:  Do you believe that the Palestinian people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers.
> 
> Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give yourself away.
> 
> You don't support self determination, you support shipping them off to Jordan, even though most did not come from there.
> 
> You're no different then those who feel the Jews don't deserve self determination and should be shipped back to Europe where manny illegally immigrated from in order to increase their numbers.
Click to expand...






 Correct most came from Syria and Egypt, as they themselves have admitted. They have exercised free determination hundreds of times since 1923, and each time have suffered for their own actions. Are you now saying that because they arrived uninvited and illegally they should be given land and property in Israel because they say it is theirs.

Do explain how the Jews illegally migrated when they had been invited to come by the last 3 legal sovereign land owners. This remark shows that you are once again denying the Jews their legal, moral and human rights along with the support of international law.

 NOW YOU CANT DENY DOING SO


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they then how come the only link saying this has been discredited by the worlds leading geneticists. The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians know that they have no DNA match to the Jews, which is why they are not pushing for DNA testing to be done. For 90% of the Jews in the diaspora the DNA match to the Jews still living in palestine and the remains in the Jewish cemeteries is close to 98%, the arab muslims tested to date hit the same match as they do to Inuit's, Mongol's, Celt's, Amerindians and south African tribes at 85%. The match that denotes a member of the human race
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots
> The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians
> 
> Why does this close relationship bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't if it was true, but seeing as the same source for the testing is used an has been debunked as faulty by peers in genetics should have you asking questions. Why is the scientist who is not even a geneticist pushing flawed work into the public domain and antagonizing his fellow scientists by causing public spats. They use the simplest of tricks to get the masses behind them, go for a tried and tested group of DNA strands that are very close in all humans and pass them of as an in depth study. When asked to explain the disparity he did a tinmore and ignored the questions.
> Let me ask you this if you had an infected finger that needed lancing, draining and treated with antibiotics would you go to a back street abortionist or a qualified doctor. In this case would you believe a geneticist or an archeologist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been *multiple studies on this*, from one of my links:
> 
> _Several major studies published in the past five years attest to these ancient hereditary links. At the forefront of these efforts are two researchers: Harry Ostrer, professor of pediatrics and pathology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, and Karl Skorecki, director of medical and research development at the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa. Back in June 2010, and within two days of each other, the two scientists and their research teams published extensive analyses of the genetic origins of the Jewish people and their Near East ancestry. _​
> 
> So again, why does it bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niether are geneticists are they, one a doctor of children, and the other a director of a hospital. You take their word over that of fully qualified and respected Geneticists, simply because they meet with your POV and anti semitism. What bothers me is that you will deny being a Jew hater yet will use the same links only found on the hate sites as your evidence against the Jews rights to 22% of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One of the referenced research articles was by Harry Ostrer and Karl Skorecki:  Their findings were presented in the Journal of Human Genetics.
> Harry Ostrer, M.D.   Harry Ostrer, M.D. | Albert Einstein College of Medicine  is a geneticist, who's research profiles include genetics, the genetic basis of common and rare disorders and Jewish genetics.  His training was in Pediatrics and Medical Genetics.
> 
> Karl Skorecki, M.D.  Request Rejected
> The Rappaport Institute Publications- Karl Skorecki, MD
> His research areas and training are in genetics, and quite considerable body of publications.  He also happens to be Jewish.
> 
> Those are just two of them.  Given their credentials, they are fully qualified and respected geneticists so yes, I do take their word.
> 
> *Why do call them anti-semitic?  Why is genetic research showing a close relationship between Palestinians and Jews "anti-semitic"?  *
Click to expand...






 First person has this as his field of interest

*Areas of Research:* Human developmental disorders, including disorders of sex development; cancer genomics, including cancer predisposition and metastatic risk; genetic variation in human populations, including Jews and Hispanic-Latinos.


 Not the DNA of Jews


The second person 

 human molecular genetics, population genetics, and stem cell biology, to investigate both common and rare human genetic diseases.


 Not the DNA of Jews


----------



## Mindful

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once heard Phoenal, Kondor, MJB and several others express support for the Palestinian people for natinal self determination beyond shipping them to Jordan.
> 
> Let's also ask the same of Challenger: Do you believe that the Jewish people do not have inherent rights to a national self-determination?  What would be your criteria for determining who is or who is not eligible for a national self-determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what the LoN decided was right in 1923, and if that had been enforced fully back then we would not have the situation we face today. I have never once heard any member of team palestine declare that the whole of the land to the west of the Jordan was granted to the Jews as their national home and the arab muslims are there illegally. That the UN overstepped their authority by carving up this land and giving the best of it to the arab muslims along with all the Jewish holy places. I have never seen the members of team palestine admit that Israel is acting in accordance with international laws when they respond to arab muslim violence, terrorism and acts of war.
> I do see many saying that the Israelis are apartheid because they wont allow the non citizen arab muslims the vote, and have a two tier legal system in place as demanded by the Geneva conventions. I see team palestine saying the Israelis are guilty of war crimes when the children and civilians forced to act as human shields by hamas are killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you feel that the Palestinians don't have the right to self determination - that they should go to Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do have the right to self determination but not at the cost of the Jews rights to self determination. They were given Jordan but wanted all the land so illegally migrated there to increase the numbers.
> 
> Now how about answering the points raised instead of deflecting and derailing as you always do when faced with the reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give yourself away.
> 
> You don't support self determination, you support shipping them off to Jordan, even though most did not come from there.
> 
> You're no different then those who feel the Jews don't deserve self determination and should be shipped back to Europe where manny illegally immigrated from in order to increase their numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct most came from Syria and Egypt, as they themselves have admitted. They have exercised free determination hundreds of times since 1923, and each time have suffered for their own actions. Are you now saying that because they arrived uninvited and illegally they should be given land and property in Israel because they say it is theirs.
> 
> Do explain how the Jews illegally migrated when they had been invited to come by the last 3 legal sovereign land owners. This remark shows that you are once again denying the Jews their legal, moral and human rights along with the support of international law.
> 
> NOW YOU CANT DENY DOING SO
Click to expand...


Some Jews had never left.

Ottoman Rule (1517-1917) | Jewish Virtual Library


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?



I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall saying this, care to point out where you read this?


----------



## Challenger

rylah said:


> How convenient to ignore the facts in my post when they're directly attacking your answer.



What facts? When Christianity triumphed over Judaism, it was only at that point that any obstacles were put in place regarding converts, prior to that it was open house if you were prepared to have your genetalia mutilated for the faith.


----------



## rylah

Challenger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient to ignore the facts in my post when they're directly attacking your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What facts? When Christianity triumphed over Judaism, it was only at that point that any obstacles were put in place regarding converts, prior to that it was open house if you were prepared to have your genetalia mutilated for the faith.
Click to expand...


The fact is still the same, and you (and fellow Joo haters) show it each time helplessly trying to insult the Jewish culture- you know nothing about it. You think in Christian and *religious (addiction)* terms- that's all you know.
And it just proves that Jewish people were not  interested in converting anyone- especially in those place they had to hide their culture.

Fact is- circumcision is only the last action after a person tries to convert, before that he's being investigated thoroughly to see whether he does it for he right reasons, then he's told about  the death penalties, and then about the punishment for those who convert and those who helped him and all the suffering they know is coming.

The Torah clearly states who are the people to never convert, in the Talmud it states that a person should be even rejected a single explanation for the Torah until proven the right intention.

There are so many restrictions (for obvious reasons) that what you say shows as ignorant nonsense .


Explain why would someone give most of the physical pleasures in life, take 613 restrictions and the penalties for them (in this world) and join an exiled despised nation that can barely survive?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall saying this, care to point out where you read this?
Click to expand...







 In your many posts


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall saying this, care to point out where you read this?*
Click to expand...

You've got to be fucking shitting me?  Are you really that fucking delusional?  On drugs?  Or just a Hillary-class liar?

A search revealed *57* posts by you on the subject.  Here's a sampling: 


Challenger said:


> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than *European colonists* driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.



Delusions of Israelis and Palestinians Are Destroying the Peace Process


> Never happened, the Arab league was never condemned by the UN for "aggression", the Arab League staged a legitimate intervention under the U.N. charter to restore peace and prevent the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population by the* European Zionist colonists*.



Who Are The Palestinians?


> The Palestinians have every claim to their land. Jewish European colonist immigrants have no valid claim to Palestine.





Challenger said:


> There are native Palestinians, and there are European and African/Asian colonists, native rights trump colonist's rights, especially when those colonists were forced onto the native population against their will.





Challenger said:


> Good grief! Standard Zionist Hasbara re-write of events that pays no attention to actual historical fact and fails to substantiate any of the assertions made in the blog. Still what else can you expect from someone working for the David Horowitz "Freedom" Centre? Oh, yes, pure bullshit.
> 
> This must be the latest play that the Zionist Hasbara machine has come up with:
> 
> "This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population."
> 
> To try to convince the gullable that white European colonists are somehow "indigenous"  to a land of "brown" people.







Lyin Hillary Doll – Get Your Lyin Hillary Doll Here


----------



## Phoenall

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall saying this, care to point out where you read this?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got to be fucking shitting me?  Are you really that fucking delusional?  On drugs?  Or just a Hillary-class liar?
> 
> A search revealed *57* posts by you on the subject.  Here's a sampling:
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than *European colonists* driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Delusions of Israelis and Palestinians Are Destroying the Peace Process
> 
> 
> 
> Never happened, the Arab league was never condemned by the UN for "aggression", the Arab League staged a legitimate intervention under the U.N. charter to restore peace and prevent the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population by the* European Zionist colonists*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have every claim to their land. Jewish European colonist immigrants have no valid claim to Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are native Palestinians, and there are European and African/Asian colonists, native rights trump colonist's rights, especially when those colonists were forced onto the native population against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief! Standard Zionist Hasbara re-write of events that pays no attention to actual historical fact and fails to substantiate any of the assertions made in the blog. Still what else can you expect from someone working for the David Horowitz "Freedom" Centre? Oh, yes, pure bullshit.
> 
> This must be the latest play that the Zionist Hasbara machine has come up with:
> 
> "This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population."
> 
> To try to convince the gullable that white European colonists are somehow "indigenous"  to a land of "brown" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lyin Hillary Doll – Get Your Lyin Hillary Doll Here
Click to expand...








 Now he will tray and claim that they are words by someone else put in his posts


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall saying this, care to point out where you read this?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got to be fucking shitting me?  Are you really that fucking delusional?  On drugs?  Or just a Hillary-class liar?
> 
> A search revealed *57* posts by you on the subject.  Here's a sampling:
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than *European colonists* driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Delusions of Israelis and Palestinians Are Destroying the Peace Process
> 
> 
> 
> Never happened, the Arab league was never condemned by the UN for "aggression", the Arab League staged a legitimate intervention under the U.N. charter to restore peace and prevent the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population by the* European Zionist colonists*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have every claim to their land. Jewish European colonist immigrants have no valid claim to Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are native Palestinians, and there are European and African/Asian colonists, native rights trump colonist's rights, especially when those colonists were forced onto the native population against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief! Standard Zionist Hasbara re-write of events that pays no attention to actual historical fact and fails to substantiate any of the assertions made in the blog. Still what else can you expect from someone working for the David Horowitz "Freedom" Centre? Oh, yes, pure bullshit.
> 
> This must be the latest play that the Zionist Hasbara machine has come up with:
> 
> "This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population."
> 
> To try to convince the gullable that white European colonists are somehow "indigenous"  to a land of "brown" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lyin Hillary Doll – Get Your Lyin Hillary Doll Here
Click to expand...


So point out to me please, where in those 57 posts I refer to "native-born Israelis" or use the term at all? That was my question.


----------



## Challenger

rylah said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient to ignore the facts in my post when they're directly attacking your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What facts? When Christianity triumphed over Judaism, it was only at that point that any obstacles were put in place regarding converts, prior to that it was open house if you were prepared to have your genetalia mutilated for the faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is still the same, and you (and fellow Joo haters) show it each time helplessly trying to insult the Jewish culture- you know nothing about it. You think in Christian and *religious (addiction)* terms- that's all you know.
> And it just proves that Jewish people were not  interested in converting anyone- especially in those place they had to hide their culture.
> 
> Fact is- circumcision is only the last action after a person tries to convert, before that he's being investigated thoroughly to see whether he does it for he right reasons, then he's told about  the death penalties, and then about the punishment for those who convert and those who helped him and all the suffering they know is coming.
> 
> The Torah clearly states who are the people to never convert, in the Talmud it states that a person should be even rejected a single explanation for the Torah until proven the right intention.
> 
> There are so many restrictions (for obvious reasons) that what you say shows as ignorant nonsense .
> 
> 
> Explain why would someone give most of the physical pleasures in life, take 613 restrictions and the penalties for them (in this world) and join an exiled despised nation that can barely survive?
Click to expand...


I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general. As an "outsider" or "Goy" if you prefer, I suspect I have a more objective grasp of your history than you do, as demonstrated above.


> The Torah clearly states who are the people to never convert



If there's a list of people that shouldn't be converted, isn't that a guide for Jewish missionaries? Your "facts" relate to post Christian supremacy times in the Roman world, when Judaism was often persecuted and consequently stopped being a proselytising religion from the late 3rd -4th century CE.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> So point out to me please, where in those 57 posts I refer to "native-born Israelis" or use the term at all? That was my question.


That's the point.  You constantly refer to Israelis as Euro colonists when, in fact as I proved previously, *75% of Israelis are native-born*.  A fact you both refuse to admit and which you constantly lie about by referring to "european colonists" when referring to Israelis.  




Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only Geography, but basic comprehension, it seems...
> 
> 
> 
> Given your choice of maps and posts, we can agree on your talents...or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, if it were up to me, I'd give America back to it's native population in an instant, but that's a topic for another forum and another time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy to say but, of course, you don't plan on giving anything you own back to the natives nor do you plan on moving back to Northern Europe, amirite?  So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?  Is it because you are a fucking liar?  A hypocrite?  Or, as we just discussed above, you are geography and basic comprehension challenged?
> 
> Latest Population Statistics for Israel | Jewish Virtual Library
> _The Jewish population makes up 6,377,000 (74.8%); 1,771,000 (20.8%) are Arabs; and, those identified as "others" (non-Arab Christians, Baha'i, etc) make up 4.4% of the population (374,000 people). When the state was established, there were only 806,000 residents and the total population reached its first and second millions in 1949 and 1958 respectively. Judging by current population trend data, experts predict that the population of Israel will reach 10 million by 2025 or sooner.....
> 
> ......In 2014, *75% of the total Jewish population were "Sabras" - born in Israel* - compared with just a 35% native-born population at Israel's independence in 1948. 38.6% of the Jewish population are Israeli-born to at least one parent who was also Israeli-born._
Click to expand...


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general....


Now say some of your best friends are Jews.  ROFL

You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general....
> 
> 
> 
> Now say some of your best friends are Jews.  ROFL
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
Click to expand...


I don't know any Jewish people as friends; I've only ever met a few in my travels and all of those have been pleasant company. The only Jewish Israelis I've encountered on the other hand, have been rude and/or boorish; not a good advertisment for their country.



> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".



So the Zionists would have you believe and it seems you've fallen for their Hasbara. Not that surprising, given where you come from, all those jokes Americans tell about Texan stupidity clearly have some truth to them, in your case.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So point out to me please, where in those 57 posts I refer to "native-born Israelis" or use the term at all? That was my question.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  You constantly refer to Israelis as Euro colonists when, in fact as I proved previously, *75% of Israelis are native-born*.  A fact you both refuse to admit and which you constantly lie about by referring to "european colonists" when referring to Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only Geography, but basic comprehension, it seems...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your choice of maps and posts, we can agree on your talents...or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, if it were up to me, I'd give America back to it's native population in an instant, but that's a topic for another forum and another time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy to say but, of course, you don't plan on giving anything you own back to the natives nor do you plan on moving back to Northern Europe, amirite?  So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?  Is it because you are a fucking liar?  A hypocrite?  Or, as we just discussed above, you are geography and basic comprehension challenged?
> 
> Latest Population Statistics for Israel | Jewish Virtual Library
> _The Jewish population makes up 6,377,000 (74.8%); 1,771,000 (20.8%) are Arabs; and, those identified as "others" (non-Arab Christians, Baha'i, etc) make up 4.4% of the population (374,000 people). When the state was established, there were only 806,000 residents and the total population reached its first and second millions in 1949 and 1958 respectively. Judging by current population trend data, experts predict that the population of Israel will reach 10 million by 2025 or sooner.....
> 
> ......In 2014, *75% of the total Jewish population were "Sabras" - born in Israel* - compared with just a 35% native-born population at Israel's independence in 1948. 38.6% of the Jewish population are Israeli-born to at least one parent who was also Israeli-born._
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


A European couple have a baby born at the South pole, the baby remains European. Decendants of Europeans are still European by ethicity regardless of nationality.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> A European couple have a baby born at the South pole, the baby remains European. Decendants of Europeans are still European by ethicity regardless of nationality.


Thank you!  You just proved me correct and yourself a fucking liar.  To wit, even though 75% of all Israelis are native born, you consider all of them "european colonists" despite your lie that you did not.  

In the US, the 75% of American citizens are of European descent, but I know of no one who would call these same Americans "european colonists".  Only a highly partisan lying fuckwad would make such a claim.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> I don't know any Jewish people as friends;...


Not unusual for antisemitics.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general....
> 
> 
> 
> Now say some of your best friends are Jews.  ROFL
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
Click to expand...

So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any Jewish people as friends;...
> 
> 
> 
> Not unusual for antisemitics.
Click to expand...


There are 263,346 Jewish people in the UK, 2/3 live in the Greater London area, Hertfordshire and Essex(175,564), the remainder live in Greater Manchester, leeds, Gateshead, Glasgow and Liverpool. I live in the Midlands. What are the chances of me running across a Jewish person when the nearest community is between 90 and 160 miles away, in any direction? Even if I did, by chance, I'd never be so rude as to ask them their religion. So no, I don't now any Jewish people as friends, so bite me as you Americans like to say.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A European couple have a baby born at the South pole, the baby remains European. Decendants of Europeans are still European by ethicity regardless of nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!  You just proved me correct and yourself a fucking liar.  To wit, even though 75% of all Israelis are native born, you consider all of them "european colonists" despite your lie that you did not.
> 
> In the US, the 75% of American citizens are of European descent, but I know of no one who would call these same Americans "european colonists".  Only a highly partisan lying fuckwad would make such a claim.
Click to expand...


I consider them Europeans by ethnicity. You seem to wilfully confuse ethnicity with nationality.


----------



## Divine Wind

P F Tinmore said:


> So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."


To antisemitics, they're all "fucking Jews", so no.  I think he's an antisemitic.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> I consider them Europeans by ethnicity. You seem to wilfully confuse ethnicity with nationality.


And you're dancing like a circus bear. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Are you now admitting you were wrong about "European colonists" and switching to "European ethnicity"?


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."
> 
> 
> 
> To antisemitics, they're all "fucking Jews", so no.  I think he's an antisemitic.
Click to expand...


The correct term is "Anti-Semite"


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider them Europeans by ethnicity. You seem to wilfully confuse ethnicity with nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> And you're dancing like a circus bear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you now admitting you were wrong about "European colonists" and switching to "European ethnicity"?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> There are 263,346 Jewish people in the UK, 2/3 live in the Greater London area, Hertfordshire and Essex(175,564), the remainder live in Greater Manchester, leeds, Gateshead, Glasgow and Liverpool. I live in the Midlands. What are the chances of me running across a Jewish person when the nearest community is between 90 and 160 miles away, in any direction? Even if I did, by chance, I'd never be so rude as to ask them their religion. So no, I don't now any Jewish people as friends, so bite me as you Americans like to say.


You think all Jews live in communities?

Are you sure your name shouldn't be "Mentally Challenged"? 

BTW, do you ever refer to Americans as "European Colonists"?   Canadians?


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> The correct term is "Anti-Semite"


You should know.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general. As an "outsider" or "Goy" if you prefer, I suspect I have a more objective grasp of your history than you do, as demonstrated above.



Anyone who uses the word "goy" in conversation most certainly has some sort of issue with Jewish people.  That term -- like the term "zionist" -- has been infused with a derogatory or negative meaning.  It has the connotation of something evil or nasty or diseased.  That connotation of evil DOES NOT come from the Jewish people or from Jewish beliefs.  It comes from people who have an illogical animosity towards Jews who then twist Jewish terms, phrases and ideas in order to add that connotation.  

You most certainly do not have an objective grasp of Jewish history.  You have a very selective and very colored version.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> A European couple have a baby born at the South pole, the baby remains European. Decendants of Europeans are still European by ethicity regardless of nationality.



THANK YOU!

A Jewish couple have a baby born in Europe, the baby remains Jewish.  Descendants of Jews are still JEWISH by ethnicity, regardless of nationality.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."



This actually has quite a bit of truth to it.  See, Jews are nice.  But Jewish Israelis (aka Zionists) are -- what did he say? -- oh yeah, rude and boorish.  See the "new anti-semitism" separates the Jewish people into two groups -- the "nice" ones, who are more or less invisible and the "evil" ones who want such atrocious things as equal treatment and self-determination in their ancestral homeland.


----------



## rylah

Challenger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient to ignore the facts in my post when they're directly attacking your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What facts? When Christianity triumphed over Judaism, it was only at that point that any obstacles were put in place regarding converts, prior to that it was open house if you were prepared to have your genetalia mutilated for the faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is still the same, and you (and fellow Joo haters) show it each time helplessly trying to insult the Jewish culture- you know nothing about it. You think in Christian and *religious (addiction)* terms- that's all you know.
> And it just proves that Jewish people were not  interested in converting anyone- especially in those place they had to hide their culture.
> 
> Fact is- circumcision is only the last action after a person tries to convert, before that he's being investigated thoroughly to see whether he does it for he right reasons, then he's told about  the death penalties, and then about the punishment for those who convert and those who helped him and all the suffering they know is coming.
> 
> The Torah clearly states who are the people to never convert, in the Talmud it states that a person should be even rejected a single explanation for the Torah until proven the right intention.
> 
> There are so many restrictions (for obvious reasons) that what you say shows as ignorant nonsense .
> 
> 
> Explain why would someone give most of the physical pleasures in life, take 613 restrictions and the penalties for them (in this world) and join an exiled despised nation that can barely survive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general. As an "outsider" or "Goy" if you prefer, I suspect I have a more objective grasp of your history than you do, as demonstrated above.
> 
> 
> 
> The Torah clearly states who are the people to never convert
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a list of people that shouldn't be converted, isn't that a guide for Jewish missionaries? Your "facts" relate to post Christian supremacy times in the Roman world, when Judaism was often persecuted and consequently stopped being a proselytising religion from the late 3rd -4th century CE.
Click to expand...


I didn't say you were Christian, I said you were thinking in Christian religious terms about Judaism, therefore you still don't get it.

No being an outsider doesn't give you any advantage if you haven't learned anything seriously. It's like saying since you're not an Astrophysicist you understand the Sun better, it's just ignorant.

And especially if you "learn" from the Reformists, which in context of the  the Jewish history barely exist since "yesterday", and reject most of the basic commandments and practices Jewish people have for millenniums.
But also, *what differentiates them from Jewish people, is that they have an open agenda of conversion conversion- it's one of THEIR basic reforms,.*

Again if you took the time to study, rather than parrot some biased sources, you can understand the context of the laws we're talking about.
Yes there're certain rules about how to REACT to someone who approaches you and wants to become Jewish, yet it doesn't mean missionaries or targeted conversion like Christians and Muslims did. The Torah only states that those Ger's who live with Israel have to keep the 7 Noahide laws or leave- it doesn't make them Jewish in any way.

You didn't show any significant proof of Jewish missionaries from unbiased source.
Only the evidence of your ignorance and hatred.


----------



## rylah

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general. As an "outsider" or "Goy" if you prefer, I suspect I have a more objective grasp of your history than you do, as demonstrated above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who uses the word "goy" in conversation most certainly has some sort of issue with Jewish people.  That term -- like the term "zionist" -- has been infused with a derogatory or negative meaning.  It has the connotation of something evil or nasty or diseased.  That connotation of evil DOES NOT come from the Jewish people or from Jewish beliefs.  It comes from people who have an illogical animosity towards Jews who then twist Jewish terms, phrases and ideas in order to add that connotation.
> 
> You most certainly do not have an objective grasp of Jewish history.  You have a very selective and very colored version.
Click to expand...



Funny thing those anti-semites don't get is that 'GOY' means a people, nation. And Israel is referred to as "GOY" in the Torah several times without any derogatory meaning to it.

But of course as an outsider...he knows better


----------



## Shusha

rylah said:


> Funny thing those anti-semites don't get is that 'GOY' means a people, nation. And Israel is referred to as "GOY" in the Torah several times without any derogatory meaning to it.
> 
> But of course as an outsider...he knows better



Oh, of course.  As an outsider, he is capable of objectively using the Hebrew language as it is actually intended, as opposed to the Jewish people who speak the language but have no clue as the meaning of Hebrew words.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 263,346 Jewish people in the UK, 2/3 live in the Greater London area, Hertfordshire and Essex(175,564), the remainder live in Greater Manchester, leeds, Gateshead, Glasgow and Liverpool. I live in the Midlands. What are the chances of me running across a Jewish person when the nearest community is between 90 and 160 miles away, in any direction? Even if I did, by chance, I'd never be so rude as to ask them their religion. So no, I don't now any Jewish people as friends, so bite me as you Americans like to say.
> 
> 
> 
> You think all Jews live in communities?
> 
> Are you sure your name shouldn't be "Mentally Challenged"?
> 
> BTW, do you ever refer to Americans as "European Colonists"?   Canadians?
Click to expand...


I'm really not sure whether you are just doing a really poor job of baiting or are genuinely that stupid. I'll be generous and assume it's a language idiom issue. 

In UK English idiom, when describing a particular group of people in any given area, the term most often used when referring to a group as a whole is "community" as in, "Birmingham's Asian community" or "Manchester's Jewish community" or "the West Midland's Afro-Caribbean community." or "Nottinghamshire's Punk community" It does not imply these people all live in one area, they could be and often are, scattered throughout their respective locations.

...and yes, I do refer to Americans as "European colonists" when the context demands it.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The correct term is "Anti-Semite"
> 
> 
> 
> You should know.
Click to expand...

Yes, because I'm well educated.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Anyone who uses the word "goy" in conversation most certainly has some sort of issue with Jewish people. That term -- like the term "zionist" -- has been infused with a derogatory or negative meaning. It has the connotation of something evil or nasty or diseased.



I've always thought "Goy" or "Goyim" referred to non-Jewish people and I use it in that context. 



Shusha said:


> That connotation of evil DOES NOT come from the Jewish people or from Jewish beliefs. It comes from people who have an illogical animosity towards Jews who then twist Jewish terms, phrases and ideas in order to add that connotation.



I've heard that Zionist Israelis sometimes use the term as an insult, thanks for confirming that.   



Shusha said:


> You most certainly do not have an objective grasp of Jewish history. You have a very selective and very colored version.



Well that's what this discussion is all about, isn't it, objective facts against Zionist myth-history.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A European couple have a baby born at the South pole, the baby remains European. Decendants of Europeans are still European by ethicity regardless of nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> A Jewish couple have a baby born in Europe, the baby remains Jewish.  Descendants of Jews are still JEWISH by ethnicity, regardless of nationality.
Click to expand...


Oh if only, in your wet dream fantasies. "Judaism" is and has always been a religious cult, "Jewish people" are adherants to that cult, regardless of their ethnicity; there has never been a "Jewish People (ethnicity)" until the Zionists invented it in the late 19th century and even then most adherants to Judaism rejected this fringe nonsense until after WW2 when American and European anti-Semitism drove many to colonise Palestine as a last resort.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing those anti-semites don't get is that 'GOY' means a people, nation. And Israel is referred to as "GOY" in the Torah several times without any derogatory meaning to it.
> 
> But of course as an outsider...he knows better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, of course.  As an outsider, he is capable of objectively using the Hebrew language as it is actually intended, as opposed to the Jewish people who speak the language but have no clue as the meaning of Hebrew words.
Click to expand...


That would be the language invented in 1882 then? Also known as Israeli. Most American and European Jewish people, unsurprisingly, struggle to learn it. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=8065


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall saying this, care to point out where you read this?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got to be fucking shitting me?  Are you really that fucking delusional?  On drugs?  Or just a Hillary-class liar?
> 
> A search revealed *57* posts by you on the subject.  Here's a sampling:
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The native people of the place, whatever they may have been called in the past or are called now, have a greater claim  to that place than *European colonists* driven by a religiously inspired pseudo-nationalist,  impulse, oh, you're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Delusions of Israelis and Palestinians Are Destroying the Peace Process
> 
> 
> 
> Never happened, the Arab league was never condemned by the UN for "aggression", the Arab League staged a legitimate intervention under the U.N. charter to restore peace and prevent the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population by the* European Zionist colonists*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who Are The Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have every claim to their land. Jewish European colonist immigrants have no valid claim to Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are native Palestinians, and there are European and African/Asian colonists, native rights trump colonist's rights, especially when those colonists were forced onto the native population against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief! Standard Zionist Hasbara re-write of events that pays no attention to actual historical fact and fails to substantiate any of the assertions made in the blog. Still what else can you expect from someone working for the David Horowitz "Freedom" Centre? Oh, yes, pure bullshit.
> 
> This must be the latest play that the Zionist Hasbara machine has come up with:
> 
> "This word salad is a toxic stew of historical revisionism being used to justify the Muslim settler colonization of the indigenous Jewish population."
> 
> To try to convince the gullable that white European colonists are somehow "indigenous"  to a land of "brown" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lyin Hillary Doll – Get Your Lyin Hillary Doll Here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So point out to me please, where in those 57 posts I refer to "native-born Israelis" or use the term at all? That was my question.
Click to expand...










 Trying to change the goalposts because you have been caught out again, You made the accusations and now dont have the balls to admit it


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient to ignore the facts in my post when they're directly attacking your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What facts? When Christianity triumphed over Judaism, it was only at that point that any obstacles were put in place regarding converts, prior to that it was open house if you were prepared to have your genetalia mutilated for the faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is still the same, and you (and fellow Joo haters) show it each time helplessly trying to insult the Jewish culture- you know nothing about it. You think in Christian and *religious (addiction)* terms- that's all you know.
> And it just proves that Jewish people were not  interested in converting anyone- especially in those place they had to hide their culture.
> 
> Fact is- circumcision is only the last action after a person tries to convert, before that he's being investigated thoroughly to see whether he does it for he right reasons, then he's told about  the death penalties, and then about the punishment for those who convert and those who helped him and all the suffering they know is coming.
> 
> The Torah clearly states who are the people to never convert, in the Talmud it states that a person should be even rejected a single explanation for the Torah until proven the right intention.
> 
> There are so many restrictions (for obvious reasons) that what you say shows as ignorant nonsense .
> 
> 
> Explain why would someone give most of the physical pleasures in life, take 613 restrictions and the penalties for them (in this world) and join an exiled despised nation that can barely survive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general. As an "outsider" or "Goy" if you prefer, I suspect I have a more objective grasp of your history than you do, as demonstrated above.
> 
> 
> 
> The Torah clearly states who are the people to never convert
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a list of people that shouldn't be converted, isn't that a guide for Jewish missionaries? Your "facts" relate to post Christian supremacy times in the Roman world, when Judaism was often persecuted and consequently stopped being a proselytising religion from the late 3rd -4th century CE.
Click to expand...








 And yet another LIE as your Jew hatred is plain to see on this board


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A European couple have a baby born at the South pole, the baby remains European. Decendants of Europeans are still European by ethicity regardless of nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> A Jewish couple have a baby born in Europe, the baby remains Jewish.  Descendants of Jews are still JEWISH by ethnicity, regardless of nationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh if only, in your wet dream fantasies. "Judaism" is and has always been a religious cult, "Jewish people" are adherants to that cult, regardless of their ethnicity; there has never been a "Jewish People (ethnicity)" until the Zionists invented it in the late 19th century and even then most adherants to Judaism rejected this fringe nonsense until after WW2 when American and European anti-Semitism drove many to colonise Palestine as a last resort.
Click to expand...








 And you have never produced any evidence to support your RACIST CLAIM because you know it would be from one of the hate sites that you visit. Constantly referring to Judaism as a cult shows that you are a RACIST POS NAZI that just wants to see the end of the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing those anti-semites don't get is that 'GOY' means a people, nation. And Israel is referred to as "GOY" in the Torah several times without any derogatory meaning to it.
> 
> But of course as an outsider...he knows better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, of course.  As an outsider, he is capable of objectively using the Hebrew language as it is actually intended, as opposed to the Jewish people who speak the language but have no clue as the meaning of Hebrew words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the language invented in 1882 then? Also known as Israeli. Most American and European Jewish people, unsurprisingly, struggle to learn it. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=8065
Click to expand...







 Is that like the many British schools then were the children cant read, write or talk English because they are not native born. I see many British people who struggle to understand English and cant read or write it either because of failings in the education system.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general....
> 
> 
> 
> Now say some of your best friends are Jews.  ROFL
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any Jewish people as friends; I've only ever met a few in my travels and all of those have been pleasant company. The only Jewish Israelis I've encountered on the other hand, have been rude and/or boorish; not a good advertisment for their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Zionists would have you believe and it seems you've fallen for their Hasbara. Not that surprising, given where you come from, all those jokes Americans tell about Texan stupidity clearly have some truth to them, in your case.
Click to expand...






 I wonder if they knew you were a RACIST JEW HATER by the way you spoke ?


And once again you use zionist as a racial slur, and then bring up hasbara because you have lost the argument. What about your kithman and taqiya that you use constantly


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So point out to me please, where in those 57 posts I refer to "native-born Israelis" or use the term at all? That was my question.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  You constantly refer to Israelis as Euro colonists when, in fact as I proved previously, *75% of Israelis are native-born*.  A fact you both refuse to admit and which you constantly lie about by referring to "european colonists" when referring to Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only Geography, but basic comprehension, it seems...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your choice of maps and posts, we can agree on your talents...or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, if it were up to me, I'd give America back to it's native population in an instant, but that's a topic for another forum and another time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy to say but, of course, you don't plan on giving anything you own back to the natives nor do you plan on moving back to Northern Europe, amirite?  So why do you continue to insist native-born Israelis are "European Colonists"?  Is it because you are a fucking liar?  A hypocrite?  Or, as we just discussed above, you are geography and basic comprehension challenged?
> 
> Latest Population Statistics for Israel | Jewish Virtual Library
> _The Jewish population makes up 6,377,000 (74.8%); 1,771,000 (20.8%) are Arabs; and, those identified as "others" (non-Arab Christians, Baha'i, etc) make up 4.4% of the population (374,000 people). When the state was established, there were only 806,000 residents and the total population reached its first and second millions in 1949 and 1958 respectively. Judging by current population trend data, experts predict that the population of Israel will reach 10 million by 2025 or sooner.....
> 
> ......In 2014, *75% of the total Jewish population were "Sabras" - born in Israel* - compared with just a 35% native-born population at Israel's independence in 1948. 38.6% of the Jewish population are Israeli-born to at least one parent who was also Israeli-born._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A European couple have a baby born at the South pole, the baby remains European. Decendants of Europeans are still European by ethicity regardless of nationality.
Click to expand...








 No such ethnicity, the child would be of the race of its parents


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> I'm really not sure whether you are just doing a really poor job of baiting or are genuinely that stupid.....


Neither, but it's expected an antisemitic like you would always be hateful toward those who disagree with you.


----------



## Divine Wind

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general....
> 
> 
> 
> Now say some of your best friends are Jews.  ROFL
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any Jewish people as friends; I've only ever met a few in my travels and all of those have been pleasant company. The only Jewish Israelis I've encountered on the other hand, have been rude and/or boorish; not a good advertisment for their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Zionists would have you believe and it seems you've fallen for their Hasbara. Not that surprising, given where you come from, all those jokes Americans tell about Texan stupidity clearly have some truth to them, in your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if they knew you were a RACIST JEW HATER by the way you spoke ?
> 
> 
> And once again you use zionist as a racial slur, and then bring up hasbara because you have lost the argument. What about your kithman and taqiya that you use constantly
Click to expand...

Agreed.  Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "Zionist" and accusing anyone who supports Israel to be Hasbara puppets are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Divine.Wind said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general....
> 
> 
> 
> Now say some of your best friends are Jews.  ROFL
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any Jewish people as friends; I've only ever met a few in my travels and all of those have been pleasant company. The only Jewish Israelis I've encountered on the other hand, have been rude and/or boorish; not a good advertisment for their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Zionists would have you believe and it seems you've fallen for their Hasbara. Not that surprising, given where you come from, all those jokes Americans tell about Texan stupidity clearly have some truth to them, in your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if they knew you were a RACIST JEW HATER by the way you spoke ?
> 
> 
> And once again you use zionist as a racial slur, and then bring up hasbara because you have lost the argument. What about your kithman and taqiya that you use constantly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "Zionist" and accusing anyone who supports Israel to be Hasbara puppets are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind.
Click to expand...

I use the term Zionist because that is what they call themselves.

The KKK is a Christian organization but when we speak of the KKK we do not say "the Christians." So when we speak of the Zionists we should not say "the Jews."


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "Zionist" and accusing anyone who supports Israel to be Hasbara puppets are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind.



"Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "anti-Semite" and accusing anyone who supports the oppressed Palestinians to be "Islamo-nazis" are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind."

There! Fixed it for you.


----------



## Hollie

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "Zionist" and accusing anyone who supports Israel to be Hasbara puppets are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "anti-Semite" and accusing anyone who supports the oppressed Palestinians to be "Islamo-nazis" are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind."
> 
> There! Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...


"Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "The Zionists"™ and accusing anyone who supports Israelis from Palestinian Islamic terrorists to be "The Zionists"™ are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind."

There! Fixed it for you.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> I've always thought "Goy" or "Goyim" referred to non-Jewish people and I use it in that context.



The word _goy_ means a nation or people as rylah has already pointed out.  It has taken on a pejorative connotation in modern times, as have other incorrectly used Hebrew words such as "_zion_" and "_hasbara_" and "_talmudic_".  It has been my experience that all people who use these foreign-to-them words in normal speech do so in order to introduce that pejorative connotation into their comments.  This certainly is the case with your own use of language on this board.

In this particular case, you had already used the term "outsider" to describe yourself as not being Jewish, the addition of the term _goy_ was therefore not necessary except to add this negative connotation -- a connotation that the Jewish people view _goyim_ with disgust -- a very old anti-semitic libel.

You have since also used the Hebrew word _hasbara_ which has the simple meaning of "explaining" but which you also imbue with a negative connotation of intentional deceit -- also a very old anti-semitic libel.

You are not fooling anyone.  Well, except Tinman.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> ... there has never been a "Jewish People (ethnicity)" ...



This is objectively unsupportable (read:  silly argument).  

eth·nic·i·ty
eTHˈnisədē/
_noun_

the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian and have no animosity against Jewish people in general....
> 
> 
> 
> Now say some of your best friends are Jews.  ROFL
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any Jewish people as friends; I've only ever met a few in my travels and all of those have been pleasant company. The only Jewish Israelis I've encountered on the other hand, have been rude and/or boorish; not a good advertisment for their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can disclaim being antisemitic all you like, but anyone moron who constantly refers to Zionists is, in fact, using code for "fucking Jews".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Zionists would have you believe and it seems you've fallen for their Hasbara. Not that surprising, given where you come from, all those jokes Americans tell about Texan stupidity clearly have some truth to them, in your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if they knew you were a RACIST JEW HATER by the way you spoke ?
> 
> 
> And once again you use zionist as a racial slur, and then bring up hasbara because you have lost the argument. What about your kithman and taqiya that you use constantly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "Zionist" and accusing anyone who supports Israel to be Hasbara puppets are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use the term Zionist because that is what they call themselves.
> 
> The KKK is a Christian organization but when we speak of the KKK we do not say "the Christians." So when we speak of the Zionists we should not say "the Jews."
Click to expand...








 Still the context you use it in is JEW HATRED and RACISM.   It is no difference to using **** of polak was in the 1930's. What do you call Africans then, and Italians, Greeks, Germans etc,


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> That would be the language invented in 1882 then? Also known as Israeli. Most American and European Jewish people, unsurprisingly, struggle to learn it. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=8065



Give me a break.  Your desire to demonize anything Jewish is exceeding your capacity to make any kind of sense, let alone an objective, reasoned argument.  

The Hebrew language has existed since at least the 10th C BCE.  It was preserved in both written and oral form from then until the modern day, when it was revived into a fully accessible everyday mother tongue now spoken by nine million people in the world.  

And nothing in your article supports the notion that "most" American and European Jewish people struggle to learn Hebrew.  The article points out that, like many immigrants to new countries, adapting to a new language poses some difficulties.  The same problem exists in the US and Canada and European countries with immigrants.


----------



## Phoenall

Hollie said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "Zionist" and accusing anyone who supports Israel to be Hasbara puppets are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "anti-Semite" and accusing anyone who supports the oppressed Palestinians to be "Islamo-nazis" are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind."
> 
> There! Fixed it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Most civilized, sane and calm people recognize that code words like "The Zionists"™ and accusing anyone who supports Israelis from Palestinian Islamic terrorists to be "The Zionists"™ are indicative of a disturbed, hateful mind."
> 
> There! Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...







 Just report him for breach of the rules


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> There! Fixed it for you.


_*'"The amount of energy necessary to refute Zionist bullshit is an order of magnitude larger that the energy required to produce it."-- Challenger's Law'*

"I'm a fucking anti-semitic" Challenger's Law
_
There, fixed it for ya!


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction  *


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> *Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction  *









 As brought to you by the pallywood media company

Boycott Israeli Apartheid Campaign

Making it yet more islamonazi propaganda


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction



Well, that was an hour and ten minutes of irrelevant garbage and about ten minutes of substance about the maps.  So let's talk about the maps and why they are deliberately deceptive.  

Starting with Map #1, the mostly green colored map labelled "Palestine" and 1946. There are two problems with the map as it is presented. 

First, regardless of what the term "Palestine" meant in the 1800s, or in 1917 or in 1922 or in the mandate period, the commonly understood regular meaning of the word in our modern times is based upon the "Palestinian people" and that means specifically the Arab Muslim and Christian peoples who lived in the territory in question. Thus, in modern times, when one attaches the name "Palestine" to a map, one is implying rather strongly that the territory in question "belongs" specifically and only to the Arab Muslim and Christians.  Thus, it specifically and deliberately eliminates the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people from the picture.  Quite literally erasing them from the map.  That's a deception.  

But, you are going to say, the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people ARE shown on the map in the little areas in yellow.  And that brings me to the second problem.  This map conflates the ethnicity of land owners with sovereignty as though the one is dependent upon the other.  The map assigns land not under individual private ownership to the Arab Muslim and Christian "Palestinians". And the map also introduces the idea that minorities have fewer or no rights because they are a minority.  The map asserts that nearly the entire territory was "owned" by Arab Muslims and Christians, again erasing Jewish "Palestinians" (people) from the map.  

So let's go back to the map of 1946 and make a more accurate representation.  






Let's use this one.  And instead of labelling it "Palestine", let's label the area in blue:

_1946.  The Territory of the British Mandate set aside for the Jewish People in order to re-constitute their National Homeland, held in trust for the Peoples who reside there, pending their achievement of Independence.  _


----------



## Divine Wind

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As brought to you by the pallywood media company
> 
> Boycott Israeli Apartheid Campaign
> 
> Making it yet more islamonazi propaganda
Click to expand...

The good news is, according to Mel Gibson, most of Hollywood is run by Jews.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought "Goy" or "Goyim" referred to non-Jewish people and I use it in that context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word _goy_ means a nation or people as rylah has already pointed out. * It has taken on a pejorative connotation in modern times, as have other incorrectly used Hebrew words such as "zion" and "hasbara" and "talmudic".  *It has been my experience that all people who use these foreign-to-them words in normal speech do so in order to introduce that pejorative connotation into their comments.  This certainly is the case with your own use of language on this board.
> 
> In this particular case, you had already used the term "outsider" to describe yourself as not being Jewish, the addition of the term _goy_ was therefore not necessary except to add this negative connotation -- a connotation that the Jewish people view _goyim_ with disgust -- a very old anti-semitic libel.
> 
> You have since also used the Hebrew word _hasbara_ which has the simple meaning of "explaining" but which you also imbue with a negative connotation of intentional deceit -- also a very old anti-semitic libel.
> 
> You are not fooling anyone.  Well, except Tinman.
Click to expand...


And kind of like Arab words like infidel and dhimmi.


----------



## Shusha

Coyote said:


> And kind of like Arab words like infidel and dhimmi.



Yep.  Team Israel does this too, by using terms like _dhimmi_ and _taqiyya_.


----------



## Coyote

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This actually has quite a bit of truth to it.  See, Jews are nice.  But Jewish Israelis (aka Zionists) are -- what did he say? -- oh yeah, rude and boorish.  See the "new anti-semitism" separates the Jewish people into two groups -- the "nice" ones, who are more or less invisible and the "evil" ones who want such atrocious things as equal treatment and self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
Click to expand...


I think there is a tendancy to lump Jews all together even though they live in many countries and have many different views on the world.  However, I'd like to know exactly WHY he thinks all Israeli's are "rude and boorish" - Israel is a melting pot culture and they're all "rude and boorish"?  Dividing a group into "good" and "bad" based on a broad brush approach like that is suspect because it singles out one nationality as "bad" rather than acknowledging the diversity that exists in reality.


----------



## Phoenall

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This actually has quite a bit of truth to it.  See, Jews are nice.  But Jewish Israelis (aka Zionists) are -- what did he say? -- oh yeah, rude and boorish.  See the "new anti-semitism" separates the Jewish people into two groups -- the "nice" ones, who are more or less invisible and the "evil" ones who want such atrocious things as equal treatment and self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there is a tendancy to lump Jews all together even though they live in many countries and have many different views on the world.  However, I'd like to know exactly WHY he thinks all Israeli's are "rude and boorish" - Israel is a melting pot culture and they're all "rude and boorish"?  Dividing a group into "good" and "bad" based on a broad brush approach like that is suspect because it singles out one nationality as "bad" rather than acknowledging the diversity that exists in reality.
Click to expand...







 Very simple he is a Jew hater and will do anything to demonise the Jews. The more people tell him the more he will ignore them until he will show his true childishness and only reply to other team palestine members.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was an hour and ten minutes of irrelevant garbage and about ten minutes of substance about the maps.  So let's talk about the maps and why they are deliberately deceptive.
> 
> Starting with Map #1, the mostly green colored map labelled "Palestine" and 1946. There are two problems with the map as it is presented.
> 
> First, regardless of what the term "Palestine" meant in the 1800s, or in 1917 or in 1922 or in the mandate period, the commonly understood regular meaning of the word in our modern times is based upon the "Palestinian people" and that means specifically the Arab Muslim and Christian peoples who lived in the territory in question. Thus, in modern times, when one attaches the name "Palestine" to a map, one is implying rather strongly that the territory in question "belongs" specifically and only to the Arab Muslim and Christians.  Thus, it specifically and deliberately eliminates the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people from the picture.  Quite literally erasing them from the map.  That's a deception.
> 
> But, you are going to say, the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people ARE shown on the map in the little areas in yellow.  And that brings me to the second problem.  This map conflates the ethnicity of land owners with sovereignty as though the one is dependent upon the other.  The map assigns land not under individual private ownership to the Arab Muslim and Christian "Palestinians". And the map also introduces the idea that minorities have fewer or no rights because they are a minority.  The map asserts that nearly the entire territory was "owned" by Arab Muslims and Christians, again erasing Jewish "Palestinians" (people) from the map.
> 
> So let's go back to the map of 1946 and make a more accurate representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use this one.  And instead of labelling it "Palestine", let's label the area in blue:
> 
> _1946.  The Territory of the British Mandate set aside for the Jewish People in order to re-constitute their National Homeland, held in trust for the Peoples who reside there, pending their achievement of Independence.  _
Click to expand...

It is a fallacy to think that "Palestinian" excludes Jews. All during the Mandate period the Palestinians just wanted to be Palestinians with no reference to religion. It was the Zionists/Britain who wanted people to be divide by religion. Even today there is no religion mentioned in their government documents. That is the way it is in the US and that is as it should be.

BTW, in recent years Lebanon removed religion from their citizens identification. They did that because religious designations  were too divisive.


----------



## Divine Wind

P F Tinmore said:


> ....BTW, in recent years Lebanon removed religion from their citizens identification. They did that because religious designations  were too divisive.


Wow!  Just like the US and other civilized Western nations.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> It is a fallacy to think that "Palestinian" excludes Jews.



Oh, come on. That wasn't true then and isn't now.  Why are Jewish "Palestinians" restricted from visiting the Temple Mount and forbidden to pray there, as an example?

The modern usage of "Palestine" on a map means the Arab Muslims and Christians.  It specifically rejects national independent Jewish self-determination.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> ... Even today there is no religion mentioned in their government documents ...



On Palestinian government documents?  Oh please.  You work so hard making up these little angelifications of the Palestinians.  Actually, unless it has changed very recently (please provide source), religion is required on Palestinian birth certificates.  It was removed from Palestinian identity cards, because it was thought to be unnecessary since its already on the birth certificates. Hamas had a hissy fit over it, claiming that it was a prelude to secularization, civil marriage between Christians and Muslims (gasp!) and, even worse, for permitting actual Jews to live in Palestine. 



> BTW, in recent years Lebanon removed religion from their citizens identification. They did that because religious designations  were too divisive.



My understanding is that Lebanon's id cards, while no longer required (as of 2009) to have religious affiliation printed on the cards, in practice, still carry them, because most people don't bother to make the application to have it removed.  That is as of 2013 according to the Report on International Religious Freedoms.  Has it changed since then?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was an hour and ten minutes of irrelevant garbage and about ten minutes of substance about the maps.  So let's talk about the maps and why they are deliberately deceptive.
> 
> Starting with Map #1, the mostly green colored map labelled "Palestine" and 1946. There are two problems with the map as it is presented.
> 
> First, regardless of what the term "Palestine" meant in the 1800s, or in 1917 or in 1922 or in the mandate period, the commonly understood regular meaning of the word in our modern times is based upon the "Palestinian people" and that means specifically the Arab Muslim and Christian peoples who lived in the territory in question. Thus, in modern times, when one attaches the name "Palestine" to a map, one is implying rather strongly that the territory in question "belongs" specifically and only to the Arab Muslim and Christians.  Thus, it specifically and deliberately eliminates the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people from the picture.  Quite literally erasing them from the map.  That's a deception.
> 
> But, you are going to say, the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people ARE shown on the map in the little areas in yellow.  And that brings me to the second problem.  This map conflates the ethnicity of land owners with sovereignty as though the one is dependent upon the other.  The map assigns land not under individual private ownership to the Arab Muslim and Christian "Palestinians". And the map also introduces the idea that minorities have fewer or no rights because they are a minority.  The map asserts that nearly the entire territory was "owned" by Arab Muslims and Christians, again erasing Jewish "Palestinians" (people) from the map.
> 
> So let's go back to the map of 1946 and make a more accurate representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use this one.  And instead of labelling it "Palestine", let's label the area in blue:
> 
> _1946.  The Territory of the British Mandate set aside for the Jewish People in order to re-constitute their National Homeland, held in trust for the Peoples who reside there, pending their achievement of Independence.  _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a fallacy to think that "Palestinian" excludes Jews. All during the Mandate period the Palestinians just wanted to be Palestinians with no reference to religion. It was the Zionists/Britain who wanted people to be divide by religion. Even today there is no religion mentioned in their government documents. That is the way it is in the US and that is as it should be.
> 
> BTW, in recent years Lebanon removed religion from their citizens identification. They did that because religious designations  were too divisive.
Click to expand...








 BULLSHIT   the arab muslims have always used the religion card, it is in the koran FFS. From 1917 the arab muslims have demanded that they be given all the land as it is islamic, and they refuse to share it with any other religion. 

YOUR ISLAMONAZI LIES AND BLOOD LIBELS WILL NOT WORK ANYMORE AS JEWS FROM THAT ERA ARE ON CAMERA TELLING THE TRUTH. AND ALL YOU HAVE IS THE WORD OF PEOPLE NOT EVEN FROM THE AREA


----------



## Phoenall

How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN

Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”




In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.

Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.

For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
> 
> Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
> 
> As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
> 
> It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
> 
> In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
> 
> Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.


...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​
Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
> 
> Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
> 
> As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
> 
> It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
> 
> In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
> 
> Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​
> Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.
Click to expand...








 When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.

 Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter


----------



## teddyearp

Phoenall said:


> It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere<snip>. . . There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.



Actually, let us remember that the original British mandate for Palestine included territory that in 1922, after the San Remo Conference, was split off to create Trans-Jordan; an(other) independent Arab state.


----------



## teddyearp

I've asked a similar question about the 1948 war in relation to where was the outcry when Egypt 'occupied' Gaza, and Jordan 'occupied' the West Bank. And of course, Jordan also leveled most of the Jewish quarter of the Old City; again with no international outcry.

So, where was the international outcry when five Arab nations with sophisticated military attacked immediately the brand new nation of Israel who only had few weapons and no real trained military in 1948?

Lets face it.  The Jews have been hated and despised and mistreated by most of the world for thousands of years, yet they prevail.  So why do folks *still* have a problem with them having a tiny national homeland smaller than the state of New Jersey????


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
> 
> Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
> 
> As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
> 
> It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
> 
> In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
> 
> Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​
> Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter
Click to expand...

Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
> 
> Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
> 
> As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
> 
> It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
> 
> In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
> 
> Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​
> Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.
Click to expand...








 Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
> 
> Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
> 
> As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
> 
> It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
> 
> In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
> 
> Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​
> Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?
Click to expand...

You are the one who made the claims like:

Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​
It is up to you to support your claim.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this little surprise the UN has overstepped its authority again when it granted the P.A. membership of the UN
> 
> Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
> 
> As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.
> 
> It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.
> 
> In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.
> 
> Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.
> 
> For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​
> Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who made the claims like:
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​
> It is up to you to support your claim.
Click to expand...







 I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory...​
> Indeed, that is what I have been saying for years. That is why the Security Council could not implement Resolution 181. Resolution 181 "offered" the Palestinians the "opportunity" to cede half of their land to the Zionist colonial project. When the Palestinians refused, the UN could not move forward because they lacked the authority to divide a state's territory. They abandoned the resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who made the claims like:
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​
> It is up to you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, same old duck.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become their land then, what treaty handed the illegal immigrant arab muslims ownership of the land. I keep asking you this question why do you keep refusing to answer. The LoN being SOVEREIGN rulers of the former Ottoman empire could allocate land and they allocated the land to the Jews for their national home. They gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and that is where they should have all been forced to go.
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal. They might have abandoned the resolution but they did not abandon the Jews declaration under the LoN mandate and the UN charter
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who made the claims like:
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​
> It is up to you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
Click to expand...







 How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of Israeli say so without any proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who made the claims like:
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​
> It is up to you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
Click to expand...

What question have I not answered and included a link?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then prove it wrong from unbiased sources ?
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who made the claims like:
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​
> It is up to you to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
Click to expand...







 Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?

 As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any


----------



## Mindful

Near the water tower whose construction was to have such far-reaching consequences, three proto-Aeolic capitals dating back to the 8th century BCE are on display. Proto-Aeolic capitals are rectangular stones featuring a central triangle and decorations on both sides. Of the 25 discovered in Israel, ten were found right here, and provide telling evidence of the ancient palace’s elegance.




The decorative Proto-Aeolic capitals, which once stood on columns, are over 2,500 years old. (Shmuel Bar-Am)

When the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) came to power in the second century BCE, they destroyed the citadel and its lush gardens — apparently in a move to eradicate any trace of foreign rule in Jerusalem and its surroundings. _Mikvaot _(ritual baths) from a period of Jewish settlement here were fed by water that had previously irrigated the palace’s elaborate gardens.

Fifteen silver coins of a type with which Jews paid a Temple tax to the Romans were discovered inside one of the columbaria. The Jews built columbaria for raising doves that they sold to pilgrims passing here on their way to the Temple in Jerusalem. Engel feels that, like the kibbutz guesthouse of today, there would have been a “hotel” here for overnight lodgers.

The kibbutz outside Jerusalem built atop an ancient palace


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who made the claims like:
> 
> Resolution was a recommendation and nothing else, so could not be enacted in law, but it was open ended and allowed the Jews to claim all the land ( and the arab muslims if they got in first ) under mutual obligation to the UN proposal.​
> It is up to you to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
Click to expand...

Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.

A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*

The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
Click to expand...

Who or what do you believe created international borders for this mythical Pal'istan?

As this has already been delineated for you on many, many occassions, I'm curious why you don't understand and why you simply cut and paste the same material over and over again.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
Click to expand...








 Your link is not valid as it is not accepted outside of the authors circle. It is not international law as you and they claim, it is what they want to see as international law.

 Current international law says that 22% of palestine is for the Jewish national home, and it is not to be split and given to foreign interests. So why aren't you fighting for this REAL international law to be enacted in full and the islamonazi illegal immigrants deported from Israel and told to stay put



The LoN did not need to annexe any lands as the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne surmounted that criteria that you slip in because you have nothing else. The borders were clearly stated to those of the mandate of palestine, as no nation of palestine has ever existed. The palestinian people until 1960 were the Jews and they claimed soveriegnty of the land in 1948, the ara muslims claimed soveriegnty of trans Jordan in 1946.

Once again you attempt to use modern day international laws retrospectively and fail because it would mean you losing your land and property in America. Your Jew hatred is showing again and you will one day regret ever turning into a nazi scum when the world says enough id enough and starts arresting people like you


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is not valid as it is not accepted outside of the authors circle. It is not international law as you and they claim, it is what they want to see as international law.
> 
> Current international law says that 22% of palestine is for the Jewish national home, and it is not to be split and given to foreign interests. So why aren't you fighting for this REAL international law to be enacted in full and the islamonazi illegal immigrants deported from Israel and told to stay put
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN did not need to annexe any lands as the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne surmounted that criteria that you slip in because you have nothing else. The borders were clearly stated to those of the mandate of palestine, as no nation of palestine has ever existed. The palestinian people until 1960 were the Jews and they claimed soveriegnty of the land in 1948, the ara muslims claimed soveriegnty of trans Jordan in 1946.
> 
> Once again you attempt to use modern day international laws retrospectively and fail because it would mean you losing your land and property in America. Your Jew hatred is showing again and you will one day regret ever turning into a nazi scum when the world says enough id enough and starts arresting people like you
Click to expand...

Pffffft, what a load of crap. All of that blabber and not one link.

You can't prove any one of your points.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have but you ignored the links because they destroyed your argument. Something you do all the time a valid link from the UN archives supporting the Jews rights to exist, defend and lay claim to 22% of palestine are provided. When will you do the same thing and provide links from the UN archive
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
Click to expand...

Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, same old duck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.
Click to expand...

You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> 
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.
Click to expand...


Mr. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> 
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. You have been spewing the Islamist politburo line regarding some invented international borders of some mythical place you call Pal'istan. 

Obviously, you duck the question of who or what created the "international borders" of your mythical Pal'istan because you know your claim is indefensible.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. You have been spewing the Islamist politburo line regarding some invented international borders of some mythical place you call Pal'istan.
> 
> Obviously, you duck the question of who or what created the "international borders" of your mythical Pal'istan because you know your claim is indefensible.
Click to expand...

Actually, history and the UN disagree with you.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> 
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. You have been spewing the Islamist politburo line regarding some invented international borders of some mythical place you call Pal'istan.
> 
> Obviously, you duck the question of who or what created the "international borders" of your mythical Pal'istan because you know your claim is indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, history and the UN disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Still nothing to indicate who or what created the "international borders" for your mythical Pal'istan.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination....*Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.*​




The _right_ to sovereignty lies with a people.  But the _act_ of sovereignty requires control over a territory and a government to run it.​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination....*Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _right_ to sovereignty lies with a people.  But the _act_ of sovereignty requires control over a territory and a government to run it.​
Click to expand...

Occupations don't count.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​




I am more and more convinced that your broad argument is legally viable while at the same time entirely at odds with your purpose of denying Jewish sovereignty.  In other words, every argument you make to support the "Palestinian's" sovereignty over the entire territory is actually an argument which can EQUALLY be made to support the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty over the entire territory.  

From the link:_The phenomenon of occupation is currently defined as "the effective control of a power (be it one or more states or an international organization, such as the United Nations) over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory._

Since, as you argue, sovereignty is inherent in the people -- ALL of the peoples of "Palestine" have sovereign title to the territory.  It is a legal condition of occupation to lack sovereignty over the territory.  Since neither people lack sovereignty over the territory, neither people can be occupiers of the territory.   Therefore, there can be no occupation of either people by the other people.

Thus, even without the CLEAR intent of the treaties to enforce the rights of the Jewish people to the re-constitution of their national homeland, Israel has every right to sovereignty over the territory.  

If I were the Arab Muslim Palestinians, I'd be in a right awful hurry to make a treaty dividing the territory lest all be lost by Israel's superior ability to govern.  

​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am more and more convinced that your broad argument is legally viable while at the same time entirely at odds with your purpose of denying Jewish sovereignty.  In other words, every argument you make to support the "Palestinian's" sovereignty over the entire territory is actually an argument which can EQUALLY be made to support the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty over the entire territory.
> 
> From the link:_The phenomenon of occupation is currently defined as "the effective control of a power (be it one or more states or an international organization, such as the United Nations) over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory._
> 
> Since, as you argue, sovereignty is inherent in the people -- ALL of the peoples of "Palestine" have sovereign title to the territory.  It is a legal condition of occupation to lack sovereignty over the territory.  Since neither people lack sovereignty over the territory, neither people can be occupiers of the territory.   Therefore, there can be no occupation of either people by the other people.
> 
> Thus, even without the CLEAR intent of the treaties to enforce the rights of the Jewish people to the re-constitution of their national homeland, Israel has every right to sovereignty over the territory.
> 
> If I were the Arab Muslim Palestinians, I'd be in a right awful hurry to make a treaty dividing the territory lest all be lost by Israel's superior ability to govern.
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?

The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place. People from somewhere else have the right to sovereignty somewhere else.

The French have the right to sovereignty in France. The British have the right to sovereignty in Britain. The French have no right to sovereignty Britain.

What part of this confuses you?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.



The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)

And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.

Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?


----------



## Shusha

Look, P F Tinmore 

You can't have it both the ways you want to have it.

The Jewish people were (are) a people of the place.  Denying that is just stupid.  

Ethnic cleansing of a place either removes rights to sovereignty or it does not.  You can't have it both ways.  If it does not, then the Jewish people have a right to return to a place where they have always had rights to sovereignty.  If it does, then ethnic cleansing is a viable (if not moral) way of transferring sovereignty from one people to another.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
Click to expand...

Actually, the Jews were from all over the place. Few, if any, had any ancestors from Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Actually, the Jews were from all over the place. Few, if any, had any ancestors from Palestine.



This is so wrong on so many levels.


Even if this were true (and it is NOT), belonging to a "people" -- defining a "people" -- is not a function of biology whether that biology is skin tone, or eye color, or nose shape or the length of one's limbs or their genetic material.  Defining a people is in defining whether someone self-identifies with a specific people or culture AND whether someone is recognized as belonging by that people or culture.  
Surely, you don't mean to suggest that everyone who wants sovereignty over the territory be subjected to a genetic testing to measure their percentage of ancestry from that territory?
The origin of the Jewish people in Israel, in Judea, in Samaria is indisputable.  To argue otherwise is simply ridiculous and seems to stem from an irrational hatred. 
This is, fundamentally, an excuse, like many that you give to deny the Jewish people the same rights that you demand others have.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> 
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is not valid as it is not accepted outside of the authors circle. It is not international law as you and they claim, it is what they want to see as international law.
> 
> Current international law says that 22% of palestine is for the Jewish national home, and it is not to be split and given to foreign interests. So why aren't you fighting for this REAL international law to be enacted in full and the islamonazi illegal immigrants deported from Israel and told to stay put
> 
> 
> 
> The LoN did not need to annexe any lands as the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne surmounted that criteria that you slip in because you have nothing else. The borders were clearly stated to those of the mandate of palestine, as no nation of palestine has ever existed. The palestinian people until 1960 were the Jews and they claimed soveriegnty of the land in 1948, the ara muslims claimed soveriegnty of trans Jordan in 1946.
> 
> Once again you attempt to use modern day international laws retrospectively and fail because it would mean you losing your land and property in America. Your Jew hatred is showing again and you will one day regret ever turning into a nazi scum when the world says enough id enough and starts arresting people like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffft, what a load of crap. All of that blabber and not one link.
> 
> You can't prove any one of your points.
Click to expand...






You are not in a position to talk as you refuse to produce links to such things as the treaty that created palestine as a nation.

 I answered your post with facts and because you cant argue against the facts you come out with your usual ducking and deflection. Have you read both treaties and seen where the ownership of the land was passed from the Ottomans to the LoN and then to the inhabitants. You are trying once again to use modern laws retrospectively and failing because you dont have the intelligence to understand you cant. In 1917, 1923 and 1924 they did not need to annexe the land after it was handed as reparations of war. I would advise you to look it up in context to the era and not your fantasy world.



Now when did the arab muslims legally acquire Jewish land, and who signed the resulting documents for them ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can providing facts be a duck.   You have refused to provide links when requested and came back with this same reply, making you the one employing ducking and diving so you dont have to produce any evidence
> 
> 
> 
> What question have I not answered and included a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.
Click to expand...







Which is so much closer to reality than your islamonazi version of history.

If as you claim there were no mandate borders then none of the nations could exist today. And you new POS islamonazi propaganda LIE is not worth the paper it is written on


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look back at your posts and you will see. But start with the treaty that made palestine a nation that you are repeatedly asked for. And it has to say palestine the nation and not mandate of palestine ?
> As above you see I ask for your links showing that the arab muslims were granted sole rights to palestine and you deflect away because you know you will never find any
> 
> 
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination.
> 
> A second line of reasoning is based on the *Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.* The Israeli position is thus untenable because it ignores the possibility that *the Palestinian people constitute the lawful reversioner of the territories.*
> 
> The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" *with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non-annexation* and the principle that the well-being and development of...peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> The Mandates did not annex any territory. There was no such thing as Mandate territory or Mandate borders. The territory as defined by international borders is Palestine. Sovereignty lies in the Palestinian people, not in a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in that opinion piece does anything to create a border for some mythical Pal'istan you have created in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been reading Israel's BS version of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. You have been spewing the Islamist politburo line regarding some invented international borders of some mythical place you call Pal'istan.
> 
> Obviously, you duck the question of who or what created the "international borders" of your mythical Pal'istan because you know your claim is indefensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, history and the UN disagree with you.
Click to expand...







 Then produce the evidence for all to see, and not the link that says " this is the borders of the mandate of palestine  herinafter to be referred to as palestine"


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Current international law understands *sovereignty to be vested in the people*, giving expression to the right to self-determination....*Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _right_ to sovereignty lies with a people.  But the _act_ of sovereignty requires control over a territory and a government to run it.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occupations don't count.
Click to expand...







According to which international law, and your new link does not point to any international laws that actually exist so you need a new one


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am more and more convinced that your broad argument is legally viable while at the same time entirely at odds with your purpose of denying Jewish sovereignty.  In other words, every argument you make to support the "Palestinian's" sovereignty over the entire territory is actually an argument which can EQUALLY be made to support the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty over the entire territory.
> 
> From the link:_The phenomenon of occupation is currently defined as "the effective control of a power (be it one or more states or an international organization, such as the United Nations) over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory._
> 
> Since, as you argue, sovereignty is inherent in the people -- ALL of the peoples of "Palestine" have sovereign title to the territory.  It is a legal condition of occupation to lack sovereignty over the territory.  Since neither people lack sovereignty over the territory, neither people can be occupiers of the territory.   Therefore, there can be no occupation of either people by the other people.
> 
> Thus, even without the CLEAR intent of the treaties to enforce the rights of the Jewish people to the re-constitution of their national homeland, Israel has every right to sovereignty over the territory.
> 
> If I were the Arab Muslim Palestinians, I'd be in a right awful hurry to make a treaty dividing the territory lest all be lost by Israel's superior ability to govern.
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?
> 
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place. People from somewhere else have the right to sovereignty somewhere else.
> 
> The French have the right to sovereignty in France. The British have the right to sovereignty in Britain. The French have no right to sovereignty Britain.
> 
> What part of this confuses you?
Click to expand...







 The one that says illegal arab muslims immigrants have sovereignty over Israel because their god told them they owned the world. Once again you are using a modern concept retrospectively because you have no other arguments. You have had the truth from the moths of arab muslims saying that they are recent arrivals that have no links or ties to Israel. Yiou argue that they are palestinians under the UN 2 year rule, but deny the same rule to the Jews. Because the Jews got in first and claimed sovereignty of the land you cant alter the rules to kick them out and put the arab muslims in their place. 

International laws and rights apply to the Jews just as much as they do to the arab muslims, and your witholding of these rights and laws show that you are not interested in a mutuallly agreed end to the problems, just the mass murder of the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the Jews were from all over the place. Few, if any, had any ancestors from Palestine.
Click to expand...








And your evidence for this is which extremist white supremacist site ?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

* Negotiations, Israeli settler colonialism, and the Palestinians *


----------



## Hollie

Islamist colonialism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jimmy Johnson - Israel: A Settler Colonial State?


----------



## Hollie

Settler colonial Pal'istanians are Egyptians


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel Settler Colonial Mechanism in Function by Hanine Hassan


----------



## Hollie

Some history of Arab-Moslem colonialism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Some history of Arab-Moslem colonialism.


What were the Native Americans called before it was America?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> What were the Native Americans called before it was America?



What difference would that make?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the Native Americans called before it was America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference would that make?
Click to expand...

I thought it was an understandable question in reference to that post.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*From Hasbara to the ‘New Historians’: Demythologizing Israel and Developing a Critical Perspective *

**


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Gaza: Settler Colonialism, Apartheid and Resistance - Panel Discussion*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


Israel spends billions a year bombing a myth?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel spends billions a year bombing a myth?
Click to expand...

Yes. Identify for us the bombing the billions of dollars spent by Israel during this calendar year, not yet over. 

Maybe do a comparison of the welfare fraud money used by you Islamic terrorist heroes in Hamas for islamo-tunneling.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



I wasn't outraged at all.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


That's odd. Other than the melodramatic title of your usual cutting and pasting of a YouTube video, There is no indication I can find of such pro-islamic terrorist protests "sweeping" anywhere.

"Shirley", you can cut and paste more YouTube videos?


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> The word _goy_ means a nation or people as rylah has already pointed out. It has taken on a pejorative connotation in modern times,



Yes, mainly by young Zionist Israeli supremacists and racists, I agree.



Shusha said:


> It has been my experience that all people who use these foreign-to-them words in normal speech do so in order to introduce that pejorative connotation into their comments.



You have a very warped and perverted experience then.



Shusha said:


> In this particular case, you had already used the term "outsider" to describe yourself as not being Jewish, the addition of the term _goy_ was therefore not necessary except to add this negative connotation -- a connotation that the Jewish people view _goyim_ with disgust -- a very old anti-semitic libel.



As I said, you have a very warped view of the world, apparently ascribing motive where none exists. If I wanted to call you names, I would do, plainly and bluntly.



Shusha said:


> You have since also used the Hebrew word _hasbara_ which has the simple meaning of "explaining" but which you also imbue with a negative connotation of intentional deceit -- also a very old anti-semitic libel.



Hasbara has come to mean much more than "explaining". Without going into too much detail, suffice to say it's now synonomous with "Zionist Bullshit".

As for your childish accusations of anti-Semitism...*"An Anti-Semite used to be a person who disliked Jews, now it is a person who Jews dislike"- Dr. Hajo Meyer*


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... there has never been a "Jewish People (ethnicity)" ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is objectively unsupportable (read:  silly argument).
> 
> eth·nic·i·ty
> eTHˈnisədē/
> _noun_
> 
> the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
Click to expand...


I used "ethicity" to differentiate from "religious group", which is what Jewish people are. There has never been a Jewish "race" if you prefer to use that term.


----------



## Challenger

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This actually has quite a bit of truth to it.  See, Jews are nice.  But Jewish Israelis (aka Zionists) are -- what did he say? -- oh yeah, rude and boorish.  See the "new anti-semitism" separates the Jewish people into two groups -- the "nice" ones, who are more or less invisible and the "evil" ones who want such atrocious things as equal treatment and self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there is a tendancy to lump Jews all together even though they live in many countries and have many different views on the world.  However, I'd like to know exactly WHY he thinks all Israeli's are "rude and boorish" - Israel is a melting pot culture and they're all "rude and boorish"?  Dividing a group into "good" and "bad" based on a broad brush approach like that is suspect because it singles out one nationality as "bad" rather than acknowledging the diversity that exists in reality.
Click to expand...


Good point. Unfortunately this is what Palestinians tend to do in their public pronouncements, lump all "jews" together. It doesn't matter to them that there are Jewish people who are not Zionists; their day to day experience is with those who oppress and brutalise them. In such circumstances, "all Jews are the same" becomes the perception. Did I say all Israelis are rude and boorish or just the ones I've personally encountered?


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Hani Faris: Historical Context of the Palestinian Maps: Fact and Fiction
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was an hour and ten minutes of irrelevant garbage and about ten minutes of substance about the maps.  So let's talk about the maps and why they are deliberately deceptive.
> 
> Starting with Map #1, the mostly green colored map labelled "Palestine" and 1946. There are two problems with the map as it is presented.
> 
> First, regardless of what the term "Palestine" meant in the 1800s, or in 1917 or in 1922 or in the mandate period, the commonly understood regular meaning of the word in our modern times is based upon the "Palestinian people" and that means specifically the Arab Muslim and Christian peoples who lived in the territory in question. Thus, in modern times, when one attaches the name "Palestine" to a map, one is implying rather strongly that the territory in question "belongs" specifically and only to the Arab Muslim and Christians.  Thus, it specifically and deliberately eliminates the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people from the picture.  Quite literally erasing them from the map.  That's a deception.
> 
> But, you are going to say, the Jewish "Palestinians" or Jewish people ARE shown on the map in the little areas in yellow.  And that brings me to the second problem.  This map conflates the ethnicity of land owners with sovereignty as though the one is dependent upon the other.  The map assigns land not under individual private ownership to the Arab Muslim and Christian "Palestinians". And the map also introduces the idea that minorities have fewer or no rights because they are a minority.  The map asserts that nearly the entire territory was "owned" by Arab Muslims and Christians, again erasing Jewish "Palestinians" (people) from the map.
> 
> So let's go back to the map of 1946 and make a more accurate representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use this one.  And instead of labelling it "Palestine", let's label the area in blue:
> 
> _1946.  The Territory of the British Mandate set aside for the Jewish People in order to re-constitute their National Homeland, held in trust for the Peoples who reside there, pending their achievement of Independence.  _
Click to expand...

If that was an accurate map, Palestine would have "British Mandate" in brackets like Syria (French Mandate) depicted. Israel Facts? Yeah, right, whatever.


----------



## Challenger

teddyearp said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere<snip>. . . There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, let us remember that the original British mandate for Palestine included territory that in 1922, after the San Remo Conference, was split off to create Trans-Jordan; an(other) independent Arab state.
Click to expand...


No it diddn't. Transjordania was a "no man's land" where the British established a Protectorate administered from Palestine in to stop the French from claiming it.


----------



## Hollie

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting that Challenger does not hate all Jews, just the "fucking Jews."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This actually has quite a bit of truth to it.  See, Jews are nice.  But Jewish Israelis (aka Zionists) are -- what did he say? -- oh yeah, rude and boorish.  See the "new anti-semitism" separates the Jewish people into two groups -- the "nice" ones, who are more or less invisible and the "evil" ones who want such atrocious things as equal treatment and self-determination in their ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there is a tendancy to lump Jews all together even though they live in many countries and have many different views on the world.  However, I'd like to know exactly WHY he thinks all Israeli's are "rude and boorish" - Israel is a melting pot culture and they're all "rude and boorish"?  Dividing a group into "good" and "bad" based on a broad brush approach like that is suspect because it singles out one nationality as "bad" rather than acknowledging the diversity that exists in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point. Unfortunately this is what Palestinians tend to do in their public pronouncements, lump all "jews" together. It doesn't matter to them that there are Jewish people who are not Zionists; their day to day experience is with those who oppress and brutalise them. In such circumstances, "all Jews are the same" becomes the perception. Did I say all Israelis are rude and boorish or just the ones I've personally encountered?
Click to expand...


Ah. _The Poor, Opressed Pal'istanians_™.

How difficult it must be for Arabs-Moslems to survive with an entire UN funded welfare agency dedicated to further the notion of an invented people with an invented national identity.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
Click to expand...


Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees. Zionist Jewish Europeans (et al.) have no valid claim to the land.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> The origin of the Jewish people in Israel, in Judea, in Samaria is indisputable. To argue otherwise is simply ridiculous and seems to stem from an irrational hatred.



No it isn't. "Irrational hatred" is merely a red herring from a Zionist Hasbarist. The monotheistic cult known as Judaism originated in what is now modern day Iraq and Turkey and was introduced into the Levant by "missionaries" after the Persian conquest of the area.


----------



## rylah

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees. Zionist Jewish Europeans (et al.) have no valid claim to the land.
Click to expand...


pffft

Your neurosis is quiet the entertainment.

you seem to have a problem with just putting up with the word "Jew" without adding any tags to it...let alone defend your position as being a decent human being, rather than a nazi scum who's fixated on DA JOOOO's.

Now go find us any "Palestinians" who are not from Egypt, Syria or Iraq, and have any distinct culture they've kept for centuries...


----------



## Challenger

rylah said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees. Zionist Jewish Europeans (et al.) have no valid claim to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pffft
> 
> Your neurosis is quiet the entertainment.
> 
> you seem to have a problem with just putting up with the word "Jew" without adding any tags to it...let alone defend your position as being a decent human being, rather than a nazi scum who's fixated on DA JOOOO's.
> 
> Now go find us any "Palestinians" who are not from Egypt, Syria or Iraq, and have any distinct culture they've kept for centuries...
Click to expand...


Neither anxious, nor obsessed, and I avoid using the word "jew" whenever possible, as it's both an insult and infers a non-existant racial connotation.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees.
> 
> The monotheistic cult known as Judaism originated in what is now modern day Iraq and Turkey and was introduced into the Levant by "missionaries" after the Persian conquest of the area.



The lengths you will go to disconnect and disenfranchise the Jewish people from their homeland is astonishing.  It is so irrational as to defy response.  

Your claim is that the Jewish people, and their culture and language, originated in Iraq/Turkey?  And that there is no evidence of Jewish presence in Israel until the Persian conquest of 614 CE?  You're mad.


----------



## rylah

Challenger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees. Zionist Jewish Europeans (et al.) have no valid claim to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pffft
> 
> Your neurosis is quiet the entertainment.
> 
> you seem to have a problem with just putting up with the word "Jew" without adding any tags to it...let alone defend your position as being a decent human being, rather than a nazi scum who's fixated on DA JOOOO's.
> 
> Now go find us any "Palestinians" who are not from Egypt, Syria or Iraq, and have any distinct culture they've kept for centuries...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither anxious, nor obsessed, and I avoid using the word "jew" whenever possible, as it's both an insult and infers a non-existant racial connotation.
Click to expand...


 you just can't hold it can you...quiet the specimen.
Please elaborate more on how JEW is an insult with a "non-existent" racial connotation. 

Don't worry I won't call you a Jew


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees.
> 
> The monotheistic cult known as Judaism originated in what is now modern day Iraq and Turkey and was introduced into the Levant by "missionaries" after the Persian conquest of the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you will go to disconnect and disenfranchise the Jewish people from their homeland is astonishing.  It is so irrational as to defy response.
> 
> Your claim is that the Jewish people, and their culture and language, originated in Iraq/Turkey?  And that there is no evidence of Jewish presence in Israel until the Persian conquest of 614 CE?  You're mad.
Click to expand...


Oh good grief. You apparently have an ignorance of history that is staggering; probably explains why you're a Hasbarist. Who said anything about the Sassanian conquest? I was refering to the Achaemenid conquest, about 1000 years earlier.


----------



## Challenger

rylah said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can such a simple concept consistently go over your head?​
> The right to sovereignty belong to the people of the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees. Zionist Jewish Europeans (et al.) have no valid claim to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pffft
> 
> Your neurosis is quiet the entertainment.
> 
> you seem to have a problem with just putting up with the word "Jew" without adding any tags to it...let alone defend your position as being a decent human being, rather than a nazi scum who's fixated on DA JOOOO's.
> 
> Now go find us any "Palestinians" who are not from Egypt, Syria or Iraq, and have any distinct culture they've kept for centuries...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither anxious, nor obsessed, and I avoid using the word "jew" whenever possible, as it's both an insult and infers a non-existant racial connotation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you just can't hold it can you...quiet the specimen.
> Please elaborate more on how JEW is an insult with a "non-existent" racial connotation.
> 
> Don't worry I won't call you a Jew
Click to expand...


Google, "using the word "jew" as an insult" and you'll get over 9,000,000 results. Take your pick. Personally, I consider the word disrepectful towards Jewish people.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> Oh good grief. You apparently have an ignorance of history that is staggering; probably explains why you're a Hasbarist. Who said anything about the Sassanian conquest? I was refering to the Achaemenid conquest, about 1000 years earlier.



Lack of clarity on your part does not constitute ignorance on mine.  

And this changes nothing about the substance of my post.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good grief. You apparently have an ignorance of history that is staggering; probably explains why you're a Hasbarist. Who said anything about the Sassanian conquest? I was refering to the Achaemenid conquest, about 1000 years earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of clarity on your part does not constitute ignorance on mine.
> 
> And this changes nothing about the substance of my post.
Click to expand...


My post was clear enough to any student of the history of the region and indeed any biblical scholar.

Given your post had no substance in the first place, I'm inclined to agree.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some history of Arab-Moslem colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were the Native Americans called before it was America?
Click to expand...






What ever they wanted to be called, but they were still native Americans

 What where the arab muslims called before they called themselves filastins ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> *Gaza: Settler Colonialism, Apartheid and Resistance - Panel Discussion*
> 
> **









 How do you colonise your own nation again, as the land was never arab muslim since 1099 C.E.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel spends billions a year bombing a myth?
Click to expand...







 No they spend billions defending against islamionazi terrorism and violence. Which is just one of the many rights you want to be removed from the Jews and denied to them for ever more


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


>









 Only thousands out of billions shows just how little support there is for the arab muslims. For every one that turns up it means that 10 million support Israel, showing that you are talking to an empty room


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


>








 All migrants that have arrived illegally and should have been arrested and deported


----------



## Mindful

Andrew McCann writes:

:: “Here’s a little fact for you all to get your heads around: NO religious minority in ANY country where Islam predominates has grown proportionately in size over the past 50 years. By contrast, the Muslim population in Israel (are you listening all you anti-Semites out there?) is ten times bigger today than it was when the state was founded in 1948. ::


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Andrew McCann writes:
> 
> :: “Here’s a little fact for you all to get your heads around: NO religious minority in ANY country where Islam predominates has grown proportionately in size over the past 50 years. By contrast, the Muslim population in Israel (are you listening all you anti-Semites out there?) is ten times bigger today than it was when the state was founded in 1948. ::



But 8 times smaller than it should be, thanks to the Zionists who ethnically cleansed them at that time.


----------



## Hollie

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew McCann writes:
> 
> :: “Here’s a little fact for you all to get your heads around: NO religious minority in ANY country where Islam predominates has grown proportionately in size over the past 50 years. By contrast, the Muslim population in Israel (are you listening all you anti-Semites out there?) is ten times bigger today than it was when the state was founded in 1948. ::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But 8 times smaller than it should be, thanks to the Zionists who ethnically cleansed them at that time.
Click to expand...

Ah, the _Ethnically Cleansed_™ slogan. It's very similar the silly _Genocide of the Pal'stanians_™ which the Irrational Jew Haters sputter on with.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew McCann writes:
> 
> :: “Here’s a little fact for you all to get your heads around: NO religious minority in ANY country where Islam predominates has grown proportionately in size over the past 50 years. By contrast, the Muslim population in Israel (are you listening all you anti-Semites out there?) is ten times bigger today than it was when the state was founded in 1948. ::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But 8 times smaller than it should be, thanks to the Zionists who ethnically cleansed them at that time.
Click to expand...








 More rat boy BULLSHIT that he cant prove


----------



## rylah

Challenger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees. Zionist Jewish Europeans (et al.) have no valid claim to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pffft
> 
> Your neurosis is quiet the entertainment.
> 
> you seem to have a problem with just putting up with the word "Jew" without adding any tags to it...let alone defend your position as being a decent human being, rather than a nazi scum who's fixated on DA JOOOO's.
> 
> Now go find us any "Palestinians" who are not from Egypt, Syria or Iraq, and have any distinct culture they've kept for centuries...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither anxious, nor obsessed, and I avoid using the word "jew" whenever possible, as it's both an insult and infers a non-existant racial connotation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you just can't hold it can you...quiet the specimen.
> Please elaborate more on how JEW is an insult with a "non-existent" racial connotation.
> 
> Don't worry I won't call you a Jew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google, "using the word "jew" as an insult" and you'll get over 9,000,000 results. Take your pick. Personally, I consider the word disrepectful towards Jewish people.
Click to expand...


Again your neurosis shows 

No it's NOT an insult and your considerations have no basis in reality, as the Jews don't get bothered at all being called so. 

To the best of my knowledge It's only an insult in various prison gangs and Arab societies..Which one you belong to? 

Also because google shows personalized results based on your search history- this only shows WHAT YOU tend to search for- Nazi propaganda and blood- libels.


----------



## rylah

Challenger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people ARE the people of the place. (The Arab Muslims are the ones who came from somewhere else.  Though it was a very long time ago in the meantime they have become people of the place.)
> 
> And ethnically cleansing a place does not remove the sovereignty of those so cleansed.  And permitting return is one of the privileges of sovereignty.
> 
> Surely, you are not going to argue that the Jewish people are not ONE of the people of the place, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern Jewish people are a religious group largely from Europe, they are not and never have been, the "people of the place" of Palestine. The natives of that place were never ethnically cleansed, followed different religions throughout their history and are currently a majority of "Arabised" Muslims, with some Christian and Jewish devotees. Zionist Jewish Europeans (et al.) have no valid claim to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pffft
> 
> Your neurosis is quiet the entertainment.
> 
> you seem to have a problem with just putting up with the word "Jew" without adding any tags to it...let alone defend your position as being a decent human being, rather than a nazi scum who's fixated on DA JOOOO's.
> 
> Now go find us any "Palestinians" who are not from Egypt, Syria or Iraq, and have any distinct culture they've kept for centuries...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither anxious, nor obsessed, and I avoid using the word "jew" whenever possible, as it's both an insult and infers a non-existant racial connotation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you just can't hold it can you...quiet the specimen.
> Please elaborate more on how JEW is an insult with a "non-existent" racial connotation.
> 
> Don't worry I won't call you a Jew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google, "using the word "jew" as an insult" and you'll get over 9,000,000 results. Take your pick. Personally, I consider the word disrepectful towards Jewish people.
Click to expand...


Haven't you find any distinct pal-estinians yet with their culture, or just ducked it like everyone in team balestine?

Why did the Arabs take it as an insult to be called "palestinians"  before 67??


----------



## Mindful

*There is no language known as Palestinian. They speak Arabic, like Jordanians and Syrians and Egyptians.*

*X.             There is no rich Palestinian history. You will not find history books that detail Palestinian culture going back centuries.*
*XI.            Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (a nation created by Great Britain 1922), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. *
*XII.          Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass.*


*More later; with links.*


----------



## Shusha

Mindful said:


> *There is no language known as Palestinian. They speak Arabic, like Jordanians and Syrians and Egyptians.*
> 
> *X.             There is no rich Palestinian history. You will not find history books that detail Palestinian culture going back centuries.*
> *XI.            Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (a nation created by Great Britain 1922), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. *
> *XII.          Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass.*
> 
> 
> *More later; with links.*



I looked into this quite extensively several months ago in a conversation with Coyote.  The distinctions between Palestinians and Jordanians and Syrians are:

A very slightly different pronunciation in the "g" sound.  

Regional differences in the specific patterns in the embroidery on women's clothing.


----------



## Shusha

However, that said, the Palestinians, through this conflict, have developed into a separate people, imo, distinct enough to warrant their own self-determination, even if that distinction if primarily political and not cultural.


----------



## Shusha

And...arguments that the Jewish people are not a people, have no history in that land and have no rights to that place are ridiculous.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> And...arguments that the Jewish people are not a people, have no history in that land and have no rights to that place are *ridiculous*.



All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is *ridiculed*.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And...arguments that the Jewish people are not a people, have no history in that land and have no rights to that place are *ridiculous*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All truth passes through three stages.
> First, it is *ridiculed*.
> Second, it is violently opposed.
> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Click to expand...








 So how soon before the last dregs of humanity accept that the Jews are a people, have an uninterupted history in palestine for 3 times longer than islam and Christianity and have rights to the land under international law


----------



## Challenger

When the last dregs of humanity (Zionists) finally accept that the "Jews" are not a "people", so cannot have an uninterupted history in palestine for 3 times longer than islam and Christianity and have no rights to the land under international law.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> When the last dregs of humanity (Zionists) finally accept that the "Jews" are not a "people", so cannot have an uninterupted history in palestine for 3 times longer than islam and Christianity and have no rights to the land under international law.










 Plagarism just shows you are defeated by a superior and dont have any answers to the facts


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And...arguments that the Jewish people are not a people, have no history in that land and have no rights to that place are *ridiculous*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All truth passes through three stages.
> First, it is *ridiculed*.
> Second, it is violently opposed.
> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Click to expand...


Uh.  No.  In the civilized world discrimination is revealed for what it is and is corrected.  Thus women are people and have the same rights as other people.  People of color are people and have the same rights as other people.  LGBTQ are people and have the same rights as other people.  And the Jewish people are a people and have the same rights as other peoples.


----------



## montelatici

Jewish people are individuals that practice Judaism, an individual that practices Judaism can be part of the Italian people, Chinese people, American people etc. A people are a people, not a religion.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Jewish people are individuals that practice Judaism, an individual that practices Judaism can be part of the Italian people, Chinese people, American people etc. A people are a people, not a religion.









So you are saying the arab muslims aren't a people, just a religion ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*“Palestine’s Intifada: the Process of Liberation is Irresistible” with Dr. Vijay Prashad *

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish people are individuals that practice Judaism, an individual that practices Judaism can be part of the Italian people, Chinese people, American people etc. A people are a people, not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying the arab muslims aren't a people, just a religion ?
Click to expand...

That is true. But Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. with Palestinian citizenship are Palestinians. It doesn't matter if they are Arab or not.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *“Palestine’s Intifada: the Process of Liberation is Irresistible” with Dr. Vijay Prashad *
> 
> **



*Islamic terrorism: The process of liberation from it is Irresistible*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> *“Palestine’s Intifada: the Process of Liberation is Irresistible” with Dr. Vijay Prashad *
> 
> **










 More islamonazi propaganda from the pallywood production Jerusalem fund and palestinian centre


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish people are individuals that practice Judaism, an individual that practices Judaism can be part of the Italian people, Chinese people, American people etc. A people are a people, not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying the arab muslims aren't a people, just a religion ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true. But Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. with Palestinian citizenship are Palestinians. It doesn't matter if they are Arab or not.
Click to expand...







 And the Jews got in first, as they are not slow on the uptake. Now the others are under Jewish rule and most find it pleasant and good for their pockets.

 Remember that Jordan is also palestine as it comes under the same mandate.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And...arguments that the Jewish people are not a people, have no history in that land and have no rights to that place are *ridiculous*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All truth passes through three stages.
> First, it is *ridiculed*.
> Second, it is violently opposed.
> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.  No.  In the civilized world discrimination is revealed for what it is and is corrected.  Thus women are people and have the same rights as other people.  People of color are people and have the same rights as other people.  LGBTQ are people and have the same rights as other people.  And the Jewish people are a people and have the same rights as other peoples.
Click to expand...


Jewish people are those who practice Judaism regardless of their original nationality/ethnicity/race (call it what you will). They have no rights over and above any other human being on the planet that belongs to a particular religious group. No foreign group has the right to occupy land based on their religious dogma and myth-history. 

You are right, in a "civilised" society discrimination is revealed for what it is and is corrected, Until recently both Europe and America had more or less suceeded in doing so. European and American Zionists, however, managed to impose their vile dogma and perversion of Judaism on an otherwise innocent native people in Palestine; I won't hold my breath waiting for "civilisation" to reach Zionist Israel any time soon.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And...arguments that the Jewish people are not a people, have no history in that land and have no rights to that place are *ridiculous*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All truth passes through three stages.
> First, it is *ridiculed*.
> Second, it is violently opposed.
> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.  No.  In the civilized world discrimination is revealed for what it is and is corrected.  Thus women are people and have the same rights as other people.  People of color are people and have the same rights as other people.  LGBTQ are people and have the same rights as other people.  And the Jewish people are a people and have the same rights as other peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish people are those who practice Judaism regardless of their original nationality/ethnicity/race (call it what you will). They have no rights over and above any other human being on the planet that belongs to a particular religious group. No foreign group has the right to occupy land based on their religious dogma and myth-history.
> 
> You are right, in a "civilised" society discrimination is revealed for what it is and is corrected, Until recently both Europe and America had more or less suceeded in doing so. European and American Zionists, however, managed to impose their vile dogma and perversion of Judaism on an otherwise innocent native people in Palestine; I won't hold my breath waiting for "civilisation" to reach Zionist Israel any time soon.
Click to expand...









 They dont they occupy land granted to them under INTERNATIONAL LAWS that were in use at that time. That is what gives them rights over and above illegal immigrants that support islamonazi terrorism as the means to steal land.

And in the UK it was the neo marxists that played their trump card too soon and the people saw them for what they were. Nothing to do with Zioniosts or Zionism all to do with NWO taking control and having the pogroms all over again. After civilisation reaches the Jews do you think it will have the energy to reach for you neo marxists who are the new anti semites wrapped in glittery anti zionist paper..............


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


>










 Just more islamonazi propaganda to slime the Jews

 If the arab muslims had not attacked then there would not have been a massive loss of face by them


----------



## abu afak

Challenger said:


> *Jewish people are those who Practice Judaism Regardless of their original nationality/ethnicity/race (call it what you will). *They...


False, ignorant, and Anti-semitic. The Truth is, of course, 100% Opposite.

Jews - Wikipedia

The *Jews* (/dʒuːz/;[11] Hebrew: יְהוּדִים....), also known as the *Jewish people*, are an *ethnoreligious group*[12] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.[13][14] *Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish Nation,*[15][16][17] *while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.".."*​`


----------



## Challenger

abu afak said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Jewish people are those who Practice Judaism Regardless of their original nationality/ethnicity/race (call it what you will). *They...
> 
> 
> 
> False, ignorant, and Anti-semitic. The Truth is, of course, 100% Opposite.
> 
> Jews - Wikipedia
> 
> The *Jews* (/dʒuːz/;[11] Hebrew: יְהוּדִים....), also known as the *Jewish people*, are an *ethnoreligious group*[12] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.[13][14] *Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish Nation,*[15][16][17] *while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.".."*​`
Click to expand...


Well as "Phukwit Phoney" likes to rant, anyone can write anything in Wikipedia...  Especially as that article uses almost exclusively Jewish/Zionist material.

The reality is different. Jewish people are those who practice Judaism regardless of their original nationality/ethnicity/race (call it what you will). They still have no rights over and above any other human being on the planet that belongs to a particular religious group. No foreign group has the right to occupy land based on their religious dogma and myth-history. Those are the facts and they're not anti-Semitic.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Jewish people are those who Practice Judaism Regardless of their original nationality/ethnicity/race (call it what you will). *They...
> 
> 
> 
> False, ignorant, and Anti-semitic. The Truth is, of course, 100% Opposite.
> 
> Jews - Wikipedia
> 
> The *Jews* (/dʒuːz/;[11] Hebrew: יְהוּדִים....), also known as the *Jewish people*, are an *ethnoreligious group*[12] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.[13][14] *Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish Nation,*[15][16][17] *while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.".."*​`
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well as "Phukwit Phoney" likes to rant, anyone can write anything in Wikipedia...  Especially as that article uses almost exclusively Jewish/Zionist material.
> 
> The reality is different. Jewish people are those who practice Judaism regardless of their original nationality/ethnicity/race (call it what you will). They still have no rights over and above any other human being on the planet that belongs to a particular religious group. No foreign group has the right to occupy land based on their religious dogma and myth-history. Those are the facts and they're not anti-Semitic.
Click to expand...







 Lost the argument and the plot so resort to neo marxist rule 9 from the book of disinformation

 If all else fails cast aspersions on another of your opponents so that all eyes are drawn to them and not your abject failure to keep a hold of the argument. Dont allow the subject matter escape your control anymore or you will start to look foolish using the same excuse time after time.



 So why do you support the arab muslims claims to occupy land based on their religious dogma and myth-history ?


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:
			
		

> False, ignorant, and Anti-semitic. The Truth is, of course, 100% Opposite.
> 
> Jews - Wikipedia
> 
> The *Jews* (/dʒuːz/;[11] Hebrew: יְהוּדִים....), also known as the *Jewish people*, are an *ethnoreligious group*[12] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.[13][14] *Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish Nation,*[15][16][17] *while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.".."*





Challenger said:


> Well as "Phukwit Phoney" likes to rant, anyone can write anything in Wikipedia...  Especially as that article uses almost exclusively Jewish/Zionist material.
> 
> The reality is different. Jewish people are those who practice Judaism regardless of their original nationality/ethnicity/race (call it what you will). They still have no rights over and above any other human being on the planet that belongs to a particular religious group. No foreign group has the right to occupy land based on their religious dogma and myth-history. Those are the facts and they're not anti-Semitic.


So you feel free just to Dishonestly Fabricate your own Unsupported definition: Antisemitic as it is.
And it is is NOT true anyone can write anything in Wikipedia.
One can try, but it will immediately revert back to the original on most items. (if move at all)
Especially on on sensitive issues like this. One Cannot just write in "Jews Suck" or other of Sentiments like Yours.

IAC, You Cannot write anything in Merriam Webster... either:
Definition of JEW

*1a. A member of the Tribe of Judah.
1b. Israelite

2. A member of the Nation existing in Palestine from the Sixth Century BC to the First Century AD.

3. A person belonging to a Continuation through Descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish People.*

4. One whose religion is Judaism.​

Or... Dictionary.com
*noun
1. One of a Scattered group of people that traces its Descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite.*
2.a person whose religion is Judaism.
3.a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.​

Or... *Oxford*
Jew - definition of Jew in English | Oxford Dictionaries
*Jew*
*NOUN*

*A member of the People and Cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel.*

Against all of this, we have the anti-semitic pronouncement of 'Challenger,' an internet Bigot/Clown.
And of course we have ME (and many more), an atheist Jew.

GAMEOVER.
`


----------



## Challenger

abu afak said:


> ...GAMEOVER.



Not even close. All your definitions support what I've said, "Jewish people" are those who adhere to the religion of Judaism. They are a religious group composed of several ethicities. No-one has yet proven any direct link between modern European, North African or Arabian Jewish people and ancient "Israelites", "Judahites", "Hebrews", etc. Even genetic studies prove nothing, but if you want to believe your distant ancestors wandered out of Palestine, that's fine with me, but like the "flat Earthers" before you, you might find reality is somewhat different from your fantasy.  The concept that all Jewish people are related came from proto-nationalist and Zionist Jewish historians who basically, for want of a better word, fabricated a historical narrative to invent a People out of a religious group.


----------



## montelatici

A Jew is a person that practices Judaism.  There are Inuits that practice Judaism.  The ancestors of a large part of the native Palestinian Christians and Muslims practiced Judaism until the Empire made Christianity the state religion and all that practiced the religions common in Roman/Byzantine Palestina (udaism, Samaritanism, Roman religions and Zoroastrianism) were forced to convert or found it convenient (socially and legally) to convert to Christianity.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> A Jew is a person that practices Judaism.



That's as ridiculous as saying an Arab is a person that practices Islam.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Jew is a person that practices Judaism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's as ridiculous as saying an Arab is a person that practices Islam.
Click to expand...


False analogy.  A Muslim is a person that practices Islam would be the correct analogy.  As stated an Inuit that practices Judaism would be a Jew.  People of nearly every race and ethnicity and citizenship practice Judaism, just as people of nearly every race, ethnicity and citizenship practice Islam and Christianity.


----------



## Shusha

You are the one with the false analogy by limiting the definition of "Jewish" to a religious practice.  

Muslims practice Islam.  Jews practice Judaism.  

Arabs are culturally Arab.  Jews are culturally Jewish.  

So, with the Jewish people we use the same word to depict two different things.  But it still is two different things.  Maybe we need a second word to clarify.


----------



## montelatici

No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam.  In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam.  In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.



Exactly.  So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.


----------



## montelatici

They are only Jewish if they practice Judaism.  


Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam.  In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.
Click to expand...


If a person speaks Hebrew, eats Kosher and does all the things you say and is of the Christian faith, he/she is not a Jew.  Religion is the qualifier.  Anyone can become a Jew.  Trump's daughter is a Jew only because she converted, nothing cultural about it.


----------



## Shusha

You are saying that an Arab who converts to Judaism is no longer Arab.  And I call bullshit.


----------



## montelatici

Exactly, she becomes a Jew.  Because she adopts the religion. It's a religion.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Exactly, she becomes a Jew.  Because she adopts the religion. It's a religion.








 Not according to people that are your superior in intelligence, they say Jew is a race. And the UN classifies Jew as a race


----------



## P F Tinmore

*History of the Palestinians: A Land Without a People *


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam.  In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, the religion of Judaism is much more pervasive; "eating Kosher" is not a cultural phenomenon, it is an integral part of the religion's dietary laws. Without the religion, there is no "Jewish culture".


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> You are saying that an Arab who converts to Judaism is no longer Arab.  And I call bullshit.



...and you'd be more or less right, although I see where Montelatici is coming from  too. Conversion to Judaism does not change "race/ethnicity"; Jewish Europeans remain European, they certainly don't suddenly metamorphose into descendants of ancient Middle Easterners when they convert.


----------



## montelatici

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam.  In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the religion of Judaism is much more pervasive; "eating Kosher" is not a cultural phenomenon, it is an integral part of the religion's dietary laws. Without the religion, there is no "Jewish culture".
Click to expand...


No more pervasive than Islam, in fact, probably less so.  A Jew from Italy has little in common with an Ashkenazi Jew or Sephardic Jew except religion.  An Italian Jew eats Italian, speaks and reads Italian and even looks Italian.  Kaifeng Jews (and Muslims) have only religion in common with Middle Eastern Jews and Muslims.  Arab Jews,  were culturally and linguistically just as Arab as Christian and Muslim Arabs. It's just a religion.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> *History of the Palestinians: A Land Without a People *










 And it shows a desolate landscape with few inhabitants


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam.  In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the religion of Judaism is much more pervasive; "eating Kosher" is not a cultural phenomenon, it is an integral part of the religion's dietary laws. Without the religion, there is no "Jewish culture".
Click to expand...







 It is a means of stopping certain diseases from spreading through communities if you did your homework


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that an Arab who converts to Judaism is no longer Arab.  And I call bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you'd be more or less right, although I see where Montelatici is coming from  too. Conversion to Judaism does not change "race/ethnicity"; Jewish Europeans remain European, they certainly don't suddenly metamorphose into descendants of ancient Middle Easterners when they convert.
Click to expand...







 And European Jews descended from Roman slaves are still Jews no matter where they live. And no matter how you twist words they will still be Jews descended from Jews stolen by the Romans as slaves


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an Argentine Jew is an Argentine that happens to practice Judaism, just as an Argentine Muslim is an Argentine that happens to practice Islam.  In both cases they are culturally Argentine, speak Spanish write Spanish eat steak etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  So Jewish people can be culturally Jewish, you know, speaking Hebrew, and eating kosher and all the other things which make up a culture, of which religion is only a part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the religion of Judaism is much more pervasive; "eating Kosher" is not a cultural phenomenon, it is an integral part of the religion's dietary laws. Without the religion, there is no "Jewish culture".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more pervasive than Islam, in fact, probably less so.  A Jew from Italy has little in common with an Ashkenazi Jew or Sephardic Jew except religion.  An Italian Jew eats Italian, speaks and reads Italian and even looks Italian.  Kaifeng Jews (and Muslims) have only religion in common with Middle Eastern Jews and Muslims.  Arab Jews,  were culturally and linguistically just as Arab as Christian and Muslim Arabs. It's just a religion.
Click to expand...







 No they dont as I have yet to see a British Jew eat pork pies, lasagne or pasta bake, bacon butties, fish and chips or  work on a Saturday


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


>










 Dont see any references to arab muslim colonialism in the video, after all they are not indigenous to the area are they.

 Greek and Roman christians are fron Greece and Rome, while arab muslims are from Arabia


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestine: The Missing Narrative. Paolo Barnard *

**


----------



## Hollie

Israeli resistance to Arab-Moslem terrorism


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

From this post: Who are the Israelis?



P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]
Click to expand...

Indeed, those are the two core principles of the mandate system.

The mandates did not annex the territories. Palestine was a state separate from the Mandate.*
The Mandates held the territories in trust for the benefit of the people in their respective states.
*From your link:
A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:

The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. *Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties.* France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate,* one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, *each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[28]​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> From this post: Who are the Israelis?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two governing principles formed the core of the Mandate System, being non-annexation of the territory and its administration as a “sacred trust of civilisation” to develop the territory for the benefit of its native people.[2]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, those are the two core principles of the mandate system.
> 
> The mandates did not annex the territories. Palestine was a state separate from the Mandate.*
> The Mandates held the territories in trust for the benefit of the people in their respective states.
> *From your link:
> A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:
> 
> The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. *Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties.* France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate,* one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, *each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.[28]​
Click to expand...


What purpose is served by your cutting and pasting out of context cutting and pasting across multiple threads?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

The history of Pal'istan under Islamist control


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## yiostheoy

Coyote said:


> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *


Well the best way I can describe it is that the Jewish influence in London led to the Balfour Declaration which many Jews then took seriously and began their emigration from the UK and from Europe to the Levant asap.

The really smart ones left right away.

The foolish ones remained in Europe.

30 years later this waiting came back to haunt them big time.

Then in 1948 the UN and the UK tried to put the genie back into the bottle.

But genies do not go back into bottles.  Nor can you close Pandora's box.

Since then numerous foreign monetary donations to The Jewish State has helped it to prosper.

And the ineptitude of anti-Zion-ism has made anti-Zion-ist opposition impotent.


----------



## yiostheoy

P F Tinmore said:


>


The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.

They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.

Never going to happen.


----------



## P F Tinmore

yiostheoy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.


----------



## yiostheoy

P F Tinmore said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
Click to expand...

Once you leave something it has been abandoned.

It is no longer yours.

The Palestinians are S.O.L.

They left.

They are morons.


----------



## Divine Wind

yiostheoy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
Click to expand...

Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law". 

The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Divine.Wind said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
Click to expand...

When did the Palestinians lose a war?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
Click to expand...


The Islamic terrorist Death Cultists have suffered humiliating beat-downs with every skirmish they have instigated with Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Islamic terrorist Death Cultists have suffered humiliating beat-downs with every skirmish they have instigated with Israel.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> 
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Islamic terrorist Death Cultists have suffered humiliating beat-downs with every skirmish they have instigated with Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...


You didn't understand the question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Islamic terrorist Death Cultists have suffered humiliating beat-downs with every skirmish they have instigated with Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the question.
Click to expand...

I didn't understand my question?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Islamic terrorist Death Cultists have suffered humiliating beat-downs with every skirmish they have instigated with Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't understand my question?
Click to expand...


Why didn't you understand your question?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie

Did the mandates create the _Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land? _You must have seen that on a YouTube video.

No the new states were created by the Treaty of Lausanne and other post war treaties.

*Decisions of international and national tribunals*

The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) *provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt,* and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. * It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the *government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​
What do you have that states different?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie
> 
> Did the mandates create the _Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land? _You must have seen that on a YouTube video.
> 
> No the new states were created by the Treaty of Lausanne and other post war treaties.
> 
> *Decisions of international and national tribunals*
> 
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) *provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt,* and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. * It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the *government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​
> What do you have that states different?


I'm not surprised you used wiki because revisions to history are easy. 

If you go through this thread, you will see your error. Understanding of course that you will continue to revise history to placate your Jew hatreds.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Did the mandates create the _Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land? _You must have seen that on a YouTube video.
> 
> No the new states were created by the Treaty of Lausanne and other post war treaties.
> 
> *Decisions of international and national tribunals*
> 
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) *provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt,* and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. * It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the *government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​
> What do you have that states different?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised you used wiki because revisions to history are easy.
> 
> If you go through this thread, you will see your error. Understanding of course that you will continue to revise history to placate your Jew hatreds.
Click to expand...

Nice duck.


----------



## fanger

still just a duck from Hollow Hollie


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Did the mandates create the _Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land? _You must have seen that on a YouTube video.
> 
> No the new states were created by the Treaty of Lausanne and other post war treaties.
> 
> *Decisions of international and national tribunals*
> 
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) *provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt,* and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. * It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the *government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​
> What do you have that states different?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised you used wiki because revisions to history are easy.
> 
> If you go through this thread, you will see your error. Understanding of course that you will continue to revise history to placate your Jew hatreds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
Click to expand...

Funny stuff. You cut and paste various revisions from wiki and expect to be taken seriously?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Did the mandates create the _Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land? _You must have seen that on a YouTube video.
> 
> No the new states were created by the Treaty of Lausanne and other post war treaties.
> 
> *Decisions of international and national tribunals*
> 
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) *provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt,* and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. * It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the *government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​
> What do you have that states different?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised you used wiki because revisions to history are easy.
> 
> If you go through this thread, you will see your error. Understanding of course that you will continue to revise history to placate your Jew hatreds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny stuff. You cut and paste various revisions from wiki and expect to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is a medium, not a source. Youtube is a medium, not a source.

Typical propaganda ploy. Ignore the issues, attack the source.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Did the mandates create the _Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land? _You must have seen that on a YouTube video.
> 
> No the new states were created by the Treaty of Lausanne and other post war treaties.
> 
> *Decisions of international and national tribunals*
> 
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) *provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt,* and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. * It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the *government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​
> What do you have that states different?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised you used wiki because revisions to history are easy.
> 
> If you go through this thread, you will see your error. Understanding of course that you will continue to revise history to placate your Jew hatreds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny stuff. You cut and paste various revisions from wiki and expect to be taken seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wikipedia is a medium, not a source. Youtube is a medium, not a source.
> 
> Typical propaganda ploy. Ignore the issues, attack the source.
Click to expand...

Typical tactic surrounding *The Tinmore Vortex™*.  

Did you not notice that your wiki article announced revisions?


----------



## yiostheoy

P F Tinmore said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
Click to expand...

The Palestinians who left lost everything.

The Palestinians who stayed were smarter.  Now they need to integrate into Israeli society.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Did the mandates create the _Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land? _You must have seen that on a YouTube video.
> 
> No the new states were created by the Treaty of Lausanne and other post war treaties.
> 
> *Decisions of international and national tribunals*
> 
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) *provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. *The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt,* and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. * It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.* In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state* for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the *government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia​
> What do you have that states different?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised you used wiki because revisions to history are easy.
> 
> If you go through this thread, you will see your error. Understanding of course that you will continue to revise history to placate your Jew hatreds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny stuff. You cut and paste various revisions from wiki and expect to be taken seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wikipedia is a medium, not a source. Youtube is a medium, not a source.
> 
> Typical propaganda ploy. Ignore the issues, attack the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical tactic surrounding *The Tinmore Vortex™*.
> 
> Did you not notice that your wiki article announced revisions?
Click to expand...

Yes. So?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised you used wiki because revisions to history are easy.
> 
> If you go through this thread, you will see your error. Understanding of course that you will continue to revise history to placate your Jew hatreds.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny stuff. You cut and paste various revisions from wiki and expect to be taken seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wikipedia is a medium, not a source. Youtube is a medium, not a source.
> 
> Typical propaganda ploy. Ignore the issues, attack the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical tactic surrounding *The Tinmore Vortex™*.
> 
> Did you not notice that your wiki article announced revisions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. So?
Click to expand...


Tell us about those revisions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

yiostheoy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians who left lost everything.
> 
> The Palestinians who stayed were smarter.  Now they need to integrate into Israeli society.
Click to expand...

The UN says otherwise.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff. You cut and paste various revisions from wiki and expect to be taken seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wikipedia is a medium, not a source. Youtube is a medium, not a source.
> 
> Typical propaganda ploy. Ignore the issues, attack the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical tactic surrounding *The Tinmore Vortex™*.
> 
> Did you not notice that your wiki article announced revisions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us about those revisions.
Click to expand...

What about them?


----------



## fanger

yiostheoy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians who left lost everything.
> 
> The Palestinians who stayed were smarter.  Now they need to integrate into Israeli society.
Click to expand...


His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, *it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.


----------



## P F Tinmore

fanger said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> 
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians who left lost everything.
> 
> The Palestinians who stayed were smarter.  Now they need to integrate into Israeli society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, *it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Click to expand...

Of course this was just a letter that had no legal authority. The land did not belong to Britain so they had no authority to promise anything.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff. You cut and paste various revisions from wiki and expect to be taken seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is a medium, not a source. Youtube is a medium, not a source.
> 
> Typical propaganda ploy. Ignore the issues, attack the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical tactic surrounding *The Tinmore Vortex™*.
> 
> Did you not notice that your wiki article announced revisions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us about those revisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about them?
Click to expand...


What was revised?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia is a medium, not a source. Youtube is a medium, not a source.
> 
> Typical propaganda ploy. Ignore the issues, attack the source.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical tactic surrounding *The Tinmore Vortex™*.
> 
> Did you not notice that your wiki article announced revisions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us about those revisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was revised?
Click to expand...

The new version is less legal history and more in current political affairs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

yiostheoy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
Click to expand...

Not really. You need to read up.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical tactic surrounding *The Tinmore Vortex™*.
> 
> Did you not notice that your wiki article announced revisions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us about those revisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was revised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new version is less legal history and more in current political affairs.
Click to expand...

It's great that you have wiki to re-write history.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us about those revisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was revised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new version is less legal history and more in current political affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's great that you have wiki to re-write history.
Click to expand...

Editing Wikipedia (as Israel pays its operatives to do) does not change history.

What I posted are facts that you have not refuted.


----------



## Penelope

P F Tinmore said:


>



That is an excellent video, thank you.  Thank goodness for the new historians and the truth. Seems like the West Bank is like Syria, but instead of ISIS they are the IDF.

We wonder what created Hezbollah, well many Shia lived in northern Israel who were made to leave by the Israelis and brutal ways. Those they are referred to as Palestinians they are, but they are Shias who lived in the some of the northern towns.



> Shia villages in Palestine
> 
> From 1923 to 1948, there were seven villages in Mandatory Palestine for which the population was predominantly Shia Muslim (also known as Metawali). They were Tarbikha, Saliha, Malkiyeh, Nabi Yusha, Qadas, Hunin, and Abil al-Qamh.[1] These villages were transferred from the French to the British sphere as a result of the border agreement of 1923. All of them were depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and their former locations are now in northern Israel.
> 
> Shia villages in Palestine - Wikipedia



I think the British thought the Jews would be able to live in a mixed society and allow others respect who lived there but no, just like they forced the British out they forcibly removed the Arabs, while some fled instead of being killed.  Really glad the real history is coming out.

If one clicks on every town in the above wiki article, one can see how they used force to make the Arabs leave mostly Shia Muslims .


----------



## Penelope

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us about those revisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was revised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new version is less legal history and more in current political affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's great that you have wiki to re-write history.
Click to expand...


Isn't it, be sure to follow links.  Not rewriting it, just getting rid of the Jewish bias , finally the truth comes out. Can't hide forever.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us about those revisions.
> 
> 
> 
> What about them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was revised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new version is less legal history and more in current political affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's great that you have wiki to re-write history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Editing Wikipedia (as Israel pays its operatives to do) does not change history.
> 
> What I posted are facts that you have not refuted.
Click to expand...

Funny stuff. You cut and pasted a wiki article that you admitted was edited. Now, you're reduced to conspiracy theories about "Israeli operatives" making those edits. Lastly, you're insisting the edited wiki article is fact, while promoting a conspiracy that Israeli operatives have made those edits

What a mess you've made.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was revised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new version is less legal history and more in current political affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's great that you have wiki to re-write history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Editing Wikipedia (as Israel pays its operatives to do) does not change history.
> 
> What I posted are facts that you have not refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny stuff. You cut and pasted a wiki article that you admitted was edited. Now, you're reduced to conspiracy theories about "Israeli operatives" making those edits. Lastly, you're insisting the edited wiki article is fact, while promoting a conspiracy that Israeli operatives have made those edits
> 
> What a mess you've made.
Click to expand...

*Wikipedia - Israel is paying internet workers to manipulate online content *


----------



## Divine Wind

P F Tinmore said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
Click to expand...

When did they ever win one?  Why are they the ones with a Death Cult society and the Israelis have a thriving, vibrant economy?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Divine.Wind said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did they ever win one?  Why are they the ones with a Death Cult society and the Israelis have a thriving, vibrant economy?
Click to expand...

Israel is the mooch capital of the world.


----------



## fanger

*ISRAEL SEEKS BUFFER ZONE ON BORDERS WITH SYRIA*
*Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking a buffer zone against Syria, Iran and Hezbollah on the borders with Syria to be part of any future deal to end the Syrian crisis, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Friday.

According to the Israeli newspaper, Netanyahu proposed this issue during meetings with American and other coalition countries.

Netanyahu wants to prevent Iran and Hezbollah from establishing a foothold and he intends to undermine future attacks against Israel, noting that he had suggested international forces to supervise his proposed buffer zone.

Last Friday, the Israeli Maariv revealed that Netanyahu sent messages to the international parties involved in the talks about Syria’s future.

These messages, according to the Egyptian news website Moheet, suggested Israel’s desire to decrease its reliance on military attacks on Syria in exchange for reaching a silent agreement that Iran and Hezbollah do not approach the Armistice Line in the occupied Golan Heights.
Israel seeks buffer zone on borders with Syria

Not inside israel however

Comments 
.
We already HAVE a buffer zone with Syria! It’s called the Golan Heights. We’ve bleated on for decades about how strategically important it was to keep that area for just such a reason. Whose fault is it that we then decided to populate this buffer zone with thousands upon thousands of civilians? We did EXACTLY the same thing in the West Bank! We captured it, occupied it and declared it of the utmost strategic importance to keep it as a buffer zone between poor defenseless Tel Aviv and the forces of the evil King of Jordan. We then promptly transferred and spent the next half century pouring 600,000 Israeli civilians into the EXACT same “buffer zone” right up to the banks of the Jordan River! So again I ask. Exactly whose fualt is it that we have no buffer zones left?
*


----------



## P F Tinmore

fanger said:


> *ISRAEL SEEKS BUFFER ZONE ON BORDERS WITH SYRIA*
> *Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking a buffer zone against Syria, Iran and Hezbollah on the borders with Syria to be part of any future deal to end the Syrian crisis, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Friday.*
> 
> *According to the Israeli newspaper, Netanyahu proposed this issue during meetings with American and other coalition countries.*
> 
> *Netanyahu wants to prevent Iran and Hezbollah from establishing a foothold and he intends to undermine future attacks against Israel, noting that he had suggested international forces to supervise his proposed buffer zone.*
> 
> *Last Friday, the Israeli Maariv revealed that Netanyahu sent messages to the international parties involved in the talks about Syria’s future.*
> 
> *These messages, according to the Egyptian news website Moheet, suggested Israel’s desire to decrease its reliance on military attacks on Syria in exchange for reaching a silent agreement that Iran and Hezbollah do not approach the Armistice Line in the occupied Golan Heights.*
> *Israel seeks buffer zone on borders with Syria*
> 
> *Not inside israel however*
> 
> *Comments *
> *.*
> *We already HAVE a buffer zone with Syria! It’s called the Golan Heights. We’ve bleated on for decades about how strategically important it was to keep that area for just such a reason. Whose fault is it that we then decided to populate this buffer zone with thousands upon thousands of civilians? We did EXACTLY the same thing in the West Bank! We captured it, occupied it and declared it of the utmost strategic importance to keep it as a buffer zone between poor defenseless Tel Aviv and the forces of the evil King of Jordan. We then promptly transferred and spent the next half century pouring 600,000 Israeli civilians into the EXACT same “buffer zone” right up to the banks of the Jordan River! So again I ask. Exactly whose fualt is it that we have no buffer zones left?*


I knew the freeloaders would not put it on their own side of the border.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did they ever win one?  Why are they the ones with a Death Cult society and the Israelis have a thriving, vibrant economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you're just playing dumb regarding the dedicated UN welfare fraud that continues the hoax of Pal'istanian Arabs.


----------



## Hollie

fanger said:


> *ISRAEL SEEKS BUFFER ZONE ON BORDERS WITH SYRIA*
> *Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking a buffer zone against Syria, Iran and Hezbollah on the borders with Syria to be part of any future deal to end the Syrian crisis, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Friday.*
> 
> *According to the Israeli newspaper, Netanyahu proposed this issue during meetings with American and other coalition countries.*
> 
> *Netanyahu wants to prevent Iran and Hezbollah from establishing a foothold and he intends to undermine future attacks against Israel, noting that he had suggested international forces to supervise his proposed buffer zone.*
> 
> *Last Friday, the Israeli Maariv revealed that Netanyahu sent messages to the international parties involved in the talks about Syria’s future.*
> 
> *These messages, according to the Egyptian news website Moheet, suggested Israel’s desire to decrease its reliance on military attacks on Syria in exchange for reaching a silent agreement that Iran and Hezbollah do not approach the Armistice Line in the occupied Golan Heights.*
> *Israel seeks buffer zone on borders with Syria*
> 
> *Not inside israel however*
> 
> *Comments *
> *.*
> *We already HAVE a buffer zone with Syria! It’s called the Golan Heights. We’ve bleated on for decades about how strategically important it was to keep that area for just such a reason. Whose fault is it that we then decided to populate this buffer zone with thousands upon thousands of civilians? We did EXACTLY the same thing in the West Bank! We captured it, occupied it and declared it of the utmost strategic importance to keep it as a buffer zone between poor defenseless Tel Aviv and the forces of the evil King of Jordan. We then promptly transferred and spent the next half century pouring 600,000 Israeli civilians into the EXACT same “buffer zone” right up to the banks of the Jordan River! So again I ask. Exactly whose fualt is it that we have no buffer zones left?*



*Doesn't seem unreasonable to have separation between those Islamic terrorist enclaves.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did they ever win one?  Why are they the ones with a Death Cult society and the Israelis have a thriving, vibrant economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you're just playing dumb regarding the dedicated UN welfare fraud that continues the hoax of Pal'istanian Arabs.
Click to expand...

Not at all. That is Israel's expense to the world.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Add to the the consequence of war.  By attacking Israel and losing, the term "to the victor belong the spoils" applies along with "possession is 9/10ths of the law".
> 
> The Palestinians haven't helped themselves by becoming a Death Cult.  Their fellow Arab Muslims haven't helped the Palestinian people by supplying them with weapons and suicide belts rather than factories or allowing them it immigrate.
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians lose a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did they ever win one?  Why are they the ones with a Death Cult society and the Israelis have a thriving, vibrant economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is the mooch capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you're just playing dumb regarding the dedicated UN welfare fraud that continues the hoax of Pal'istanian Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. That is Israel's expense to the world.
Click to expand...


Indeed, "I blame the Jews" is a convenient excuse for Arab-Islamist incompetence and ineptitude.

Indeed, that excuse works for those like you who seek to shield Arabs-Islamics from the illuminating light that shines on the total lack of Arab-Islamist innovation, industry and commerce as compared to most of the planet.

Indeed, Arab-Islamist backwaters are an embarrassment.

*Innovation in the Arab world. From zero to not much more*

http://www.economist.com/news/middl...e-creative-stifling-region-zero-not-much-more


----------



## theliq

yiostheoy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians left of their own accord in 1948 then realized too late their own stupidity for doing so.
> 
> They have been trying to fight their way back in ever since.
> 
> Never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter. The reason for leaving is irrelevant. The right to return applies without regard to the reason for leaving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you leave something it has been abandoned.
> 
> It is no longer yours.
> 
> The Palestinians are S.O.L.
> 
> They left.
> 
> They are morons.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.

Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS

as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT

WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven


----------



## Divine Wind

theliq said:


> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven


That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?

The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.


----------



## theliq

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
Click to expand...

I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.

The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.

More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.

Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.

I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS


----------



## Divine Wind

theliq said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.
> 
> The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.
> 
> More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.
> 
> Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.
> 
> I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS
Click to expand...

Radical Islam is the problem.  Much of radical Islam is fueled with hate directed at Israel and, by association, the US.

Rationalize all you want, but car bombings, running down women and children with trucks and other acts of mass murder by radical Muslims will only create a backlash which will see the collective might of the Western world descend upon the Middle East and impose Western order on every nation that doesn't fully cooperate.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.
> 
> The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.
> 
> More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.
> 
> Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.
> 
> I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radical Islam is the problem.  Much of radical Islam is fueled with hate directed at Israel and, by association, the US.
> 
> Rationalize all you want, but car bombings, running down women and children with trucks and other acts of mass murder by radical Muslims will only create a backlash which will see the collective might of the Western world descend upon the Middle East and impose Western order on every nation that doesn't fully cooperate.
Click to expand...


Dream on, that idea worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. All those places are hotbeds of Islamic extremism, precisely *because *the West has interfered in the region over the decades.


----------



## Hollie

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.
> 
> The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.
> 
> More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.
> 
> Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.
> 
> I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radical Islam is the problem.  Much of radical Islam is fueled with hate directed at Israel and, by association, the US.
> 
> Rationalize all you want, but car bombings, running down women and children with trucks and other acts of mass murder by radical Muslims will only create a backlash which will see the collective might of the Western world descend upon the Middle East and impose Western order on every nation that doesn't fully cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dream on, that idea worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. All those places are hotbeds of Islamic extremism, precisely *because *the West has interfered in the region over the decades.
Click to expand...


Yes. Islam's 1,400 year history of war, rapine and conquest is directly caused by the _Great Satan_ ™.

You goofy converts are a hoot.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.
> 
> The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.
> 
> More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.
> 
> Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.
> 
> I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radical Islam is the problem.  Much of radical Islam is fueled with hate directed at Israel and, by association, the US.
> 
> Rationalize all you want, but car bombings, running down women and children with trucks and other acts of mass murder by radical Muslims will only create a backlash which will see the collective might of the Western world descend upon the Middle East and impose Western order on every nation that doesn't fully cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dream on, that idea worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. All those places are hotbeds of Islamic extremism, precisely *because *the West has interfered in the region over the decades.
Click to expand...

You are free to believe all the problems of the ME and SWA are caused by the West, but that's as silly as saying Ebola or HIV is caused by the West.  Both already existed.  It was interaction with the West that caused those diseases to escape their regions.  Similarly, radical Jihadism (a form of Wahhabism) existed long before the Sykes-Picot agreement or the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.  

About Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever| Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC
_Ebola viruses are found in several African countries. Ebola was first discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since then, outbreaks have appeared sporadically in Africa_.

About HIV/AIDS | HIV Basics | HIV/AIDS | CDC
_Scientists identified a type of chimpanzee in Central Africa as the source of HIV infection in humans. They believe that the chimpanzee version of the immunodeficiency virus (called simian immunodeficiency virus, or SIV) most likely was transmitted to humans and mutated into HIV when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came into contact with their infected blood. Studies show that HIV may have jumped from apes to humans as far back as the late 1800s. Over decades, the virus slowly spread across Africa and later into other parts of the world. We know that the virus has existed in the United States since at least the mid to late 1970s. To learn more about the spread of HIV in the United States and CDC’s response to the epidemic, see CDC’s __HIV and AIDS Timeline_.

Islamic Radicalism: Its Wahhabi Roots and Current Representation
_Radicalism, in various forms, has made significant inroads in several countries of Central Asia and in the Caucasus - in particular the three countries that share the Ferghana Valley, namely Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan, Chechnya, and the Russian Republic of Daghestan. Known as fundamentalism or "Wahhabism," it poses a direct challenge to the ideal vision of a state that the newly founded nations of the region have embraced. In addition, the broader ideology name "Wahhabism" represents a serious challenge to the theology and practice of the mainstream Sunni Islam to which most of these nations' populations adhere. Should this radicalized understanding of Islam continue to spread unchecked, radical interpretations could threaten social stability at the local, national, and regional levels and create serious geopolitical dangers to which neighboring powers, as well as the US and Europe, would have to react. 

Today, throughout the world, there has been a wave of radical movements, which sometimes turn militant, whose source can be traced to the Wahhabi movement. What is this movement and how did it spread throughout the Muslim world, and now the Western world? What are its ideological differences with traditional Islam and how are these differences influencing and supporting modern day radical movements? What can be done to diminish the power of these movements in vulnerable states such as those in Central Asia and the Caucasus? 

Traditional Islam views religion as a pact between man and God and therefore the domain of spirituality. In this belief, there can be no compulsion or force used in religion. From the time of the Prophet Muhammad (s), peace and tolerance were practiced between different religious groups, with respect to distinctions in belief. Contrary to this, the "Wahhabi" ideology is built on the concept of political enforcement of religious beliefs, thus permitting no differences in faith whatsoever. In "Wahhabi" belief, faith is not necessarily an option; it is sometimes mandated by force.

*Origins of the Wahhabi Movement*

The origins of nearly all of the 20th century's Islamic extremist movements lie in a new Islamic theology and ideology developed in the 18th and 19th centuries in tribal areas of the eastern Arabian Peninsula. The source of this new stream of thought was a Muslim scholar named Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab, hence the name "Wahhabism."... _


You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia | The Huffington Post
_Saudi Arabia’s internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom’s doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse — and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export — by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him — hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse — and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export — by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him — hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries._


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Similarly, radical Jihadism (a form of Wahhabism) existed long before the Sykes-Picot agreement or the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.



Yes, Jihad has existed for as long as Islam has existed in various forms. Westerners like to blame everything on "Wahabism", but  overlook the fact that "Wahabism", while arguably older, is only one strand of Salafism, a much more widespread doctrine, which only developed as a response to Western dominance in the Middle East and is the main driver of anti-Western sentiment. To Salafists, only by returning to a "pure" form of Islam can Muslims overcome what Salafists consider to be the "intrusion of decadent western values" into their culture. What you call "radical Jihadism" is a relatively recent development and is a backlash against Western interference and meddling, not least of which was helping to create the Zionist state of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.
> 
> The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.
> 
> More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.
> 
> Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.
> 
> I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radical Islam is the problem.  Much of radical Islam is fueled with hate directed at Israel and, by association, the US.
> 
> Rationalize all you want, but car bombings, running down women and children with trucks and other acts of mass murder by radical Muslims will only create a backlash which will see the collective might of the Western world descend upon the Middle East and impose Western order on every nation that doesn't fully cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dream on, that idea worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. All those places are hotbeds of Islamic extremism, precisely *because *the West has interfered in the region over the decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to believe all the problems of the ME and SWA are caused by the West, but that's as silly as saying Ebola or HIV is caused by the West.  Both already existed.  It was interaction with the West that caused those diseases to escape their regions.  Similarly, radical Jihadism (a form of Wahhabism) existed long before the Sykes-Picot agreement or the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> About Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever| Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC
> _Ebola viruses are found in several African countries. Ebola was first discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since then, outbreaks have appeared sporadically in Africa_.
> 
> About HIV/AIDS | HIV Basics | HIV/AIDS | CDC
> _Scientists identified a type of chimpanzee in Central Africa as the source of HIV infection in humans. They believe that the chimpanzee version of the immunodeficiency virus (called simian immunodeficiency virus, or SIV) most likely was transmitted to humans and mutated into HIV when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came into contact with their infected blood. Studies show that HIV may have jumped from apes to humans as far back as the late 1800s. Over decades, the virus slowly spread across Africa and later into other parts of the world. We know that the virus has existed in the United States since at least the mid to late 1970s. To learn more about the spread of HIV in the United States and CDC’s response to the epidemic, see CDC’s __HIV and AIDS Timeline_.
> 
> Islamic Radicalism: Its Wahhabi Roots and Current Representation
> _Radicalism, in various forms, has made significant inroads in several countries of Central Asia and in the Caucasus - in particular the three countries that share the Ferghana Valley, namely Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan, Chechnya, and the Russian Republic of Daghestan. Known as fundamentalism or "Wahhabism," it poses a direct challenge to the ideal vision of a state that the newly founded nations of the region have embraced. In addition, the broader ideology name "Wahhabism" represents a serious challenge to the theology and practice of the mainstream Sunni Islam to which most of these nations' populations adhere. Should this radicalized understanding of Islam continue to spread unchecked, radical interpretations could threaten social stability at the local, national, and regional levels and create serious geopolitical dangers to which neighboring powers, as well as the US and Europe, would have to react.
> 
> Today, throughout the world, there has been a wave of radical movements, which sometimes turn militant, whose source can be traced to the Wahhabi movement. What is this movement and how did it spread throughout the Muslim world, and now the Western world? What are its ideological differences with traditional Islam and how are these differences influencing and supporting modern day radical movements? What can be done to diminish the power of these movements in vulnerable states such as those in Central Asia and the Caucasus?
> 
> Traditional Islam views religion as a pact between man and God and therefore the domain of spirituality. In this belief, there can be no compulsion or force used in religion. From the time of the Prophet Muhammad (s), peace and tolerance were practiced between different religious groups, with respect to distinctions in belief. Contrary to this, the "Wahhabi" ideology is built on the concept of political enforcement of religious beliefs, thus permitting no differences in faith whatsoever. In "Wahhabi" belief, faith is not necessarily an option; it is sometimes mandated by force.
> 
> *Origins of the Wahhabi Movement*
> 
> The origins of nearly all of the 20th century's Islamic extremist movements lie in a new Islamic theology and ideology developed in the 18th and 19th centuries in tribal areas of the eastern Arabian Peninsula. The source of this new stream of thought was a Muslim scholar named Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab, hence the name "Wahhabism."... _
> 
> 
> You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia | The Huffington Post
> _Saudi Arabia’s internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom’s doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.
> 
> One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)
> 
> The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse — and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export — by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.
> 
> But this “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him — hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.
> 
> One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader — amongst many — of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)
> 
> The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse — and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export — by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.
> 
> But this “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him — hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries._
Click to expand...

Good post, thanks.

However, I fail to see how this applies to Palestine.


----------



## theliq

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.
> 
> The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.
> 
> More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.
> 
> Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.
> 
> I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radical Islam is the problem.  Much of radical Islam is fueled with hate directed at Israel and, by association, the US.
> 
> Rationalize all you want, but car bombings, running down women and children with trucks and other acts of mass murder by radical Muslims will only create a backlash which will see the collective might of the Western world descend upon the Middle East and impose Western order on every nation that doesn't fully cooperate.
Click to expand...

You miss the whole point BADLY....The Scum ISIS and their morphed entities do not inparticular single out Israel or America,they are ideology driven and will happily Slaughter their own and any one else for that matter,which has been clearly been shown over the past few years.....All these European bombings and other crimes,including the Coptic bombings are the acts of this Terrorist Organization on the wane.Which incidentally was caused by the Americans between the Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq(the illegal War against a Sovereign  Nation)

Yes we are all sick of it...........BUT STOP IMPLYING THAT PALESTINIANS   HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ISIS.....they  don't.....Their STRUGGLE is to regain their own nationhood.........I don't by the way Rationalise ANYTHING...I Just speak the truthful and actual facts.....you Moron

So take your Terrorist Zionist Inspired  Bullshit and SHOVE IT IN YOUR LYING GOB


----------



## theliq

Hollie said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.
> 
> The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.
> 
> More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.
> 
> Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.
> 
> I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radical Islam is the problem.  Much of radical Islam is fueled with hate directed at Israel and, by association, the US.
> 
> Rationalize all you want, but car bombings, running down women and children with trucks and other acts of mass murder by radical Muslims will only create a backlash which will see the collective might of the Western world descend upon the Middle East and impose Western order on every nation that doesn't fully cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dream on, that idea worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. All those places are hotbeds of Islamic extremism, precisely *because *the West has interfered in the region over the decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Islam's 1,400 year history of war, rapine and conquest is directly caused by the _Great Satan_ ™.
> 
> You goofy converts are a hoot.
Click to expand...

You stupid woman....considering the Muslims  extraordinary benefits to mankind....Hollie good Golly,what a Wally


----------



## theliq

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians never abandoned anything,they were driven out by Jewish(Synthetic) Zionist Terrorists,SLAUGHTERED,MAIMED AND DISPOSSED,Your Fool.The Jews then razed Palestinian Towns and Villages,claiming to the next generation of Jews that all this occupied Palestinian Land was uninhabited....your understanding of History and Facts is Shameful to say the least....What YOU have agreed to and continue to LIE about is,that you think it OK to expel and murder a population of peaceful people with illegal people by Terrorism and Deceit...so by your own analogy...it is therefore OK for the Palestinians to reclaim their own Land by War and Terrorism.
> 
> Why when reading your post do the words "Moron and Imbecile"immediately come to mind.......Your knowledge of History is putting it mildly .....BOLLOCKS
> 
> as a parting note the majority of Jews in Israel are not a Semitic People at ALL but every PALESTINIAN IS.....FACT
> 
> WERE YOU LOOKING IN A MIRROR WHEN YOU ESPOUSED THAT "ALL PALESTINIANS WERE MORONS"...methinks you were...steven
> 
> 
> 
> That's the standard Jihadist antisemitic meme.   Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> The West is getting tired of this Islamic terrorist shit.   It's only a matter of time, and I think we're close, that all the Western nations close in on radical Islam.   Muslims should beware awakening a sleeping dragon and start cleaning their own house before the West collectively moves in and cleans it for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree....BUT WHAT HAS ISIS ETC., To do with Palestinians or their Struggle for Freedom?????????!!!!!!!!!! STOP MUDDYING THE WATER TRYING TO PUT ISIS etc., IN THE SAME SENTENCE because infact it was the Zionists circa 1934 to 1950 and after who acted like todays ISIS.
> 
> The West or most of it were silent but completely COMPLISIT with the Zionist pre 1948 and some like the Americans still are.
> 
> More Christians by the way throughout History,have SLAUGHTERED more people be they Jew,Muslim,Hindu or Janes  than anyone or other ethnic peoples.
> 
> Stop implying Palestinians are anything like ISIS,if you wouldn't mind because you are talking Shit in this instance.......Palestinians are in a natural struggle against the Zionist Hordes to regain their own Land which was and still is being STOLEN. and Independence.
> 
> I don't agree with all this Terrorism that is happening in the West...BUT I REMIND YOU THAT OF 250,000 Iraqis were Slaughtered by America in one afternoon,Innocent people but I suppose that is all right by you..............Shameful as it IS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radical Islam is the problem.  Much of radical Islam is fueled with hate directed at Israel and, by association, the US.
> 
> Rationalize all you want, but car bombings, running down women and children with trucks and other acts of mass murder by radical Muslims will only create a backlash which will see the collective might of the Western world descend upon the Middle East and impose Western order on every nation that doesn't fully cooperate.
Click to expand...

Another thing as seen in Afghanistan,Iraq and other places,these people have NO DESIRE FOR YOUR TYPE OF "WESTERN ORDER'"  because other people worldwide see you as  Elitist,Narrow Minded,Bigoted and Completely MAD..........Get Your Own House In Order.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Divine.Wind said:


> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?


Israel drops mooched bombs out of mooched airplanes. That is their preferred delivery system.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?



Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.


----------



## theliq

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
Click to expand...

WHY are Americans SUCH ASS-LICKERS to those ZIONIST TERRORISTS that live in ZIONISTAN......???????


----------



## Hollie

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
Click to expand...


I see. A retrograde culture such as Arabs-Moslems who create entire infrastructures designed to groom children for suicide / mass murder is the same as Israelis who respond to such a culture. 

You slow adults are a hoot.


----------



## Divine Wind

theliq said:


> ...I Just speak the truthful and actual facts.....you Moron
> 
> So take your Terrorist Zionist Inspired  Bullshit and SHOVE IT IN YOUR LYING GOB


Awesome....and exactly what I expected.  The war will be short, but interesting.  It's time the West destroyed the archaic remains of the Moorish Empire and replaced it with modernity.   Many citizens of the ME will agree.


----------



## Divine Wind

theliq said:


> Another thing as seen in Afghanistan,Iraq and other places,these people have NO DESIRE FOR YOUR TYPE OF "WESTERN ORDER'"  because other people worldwide see you as  Elitist,Narrow Minded,Bigoted and Completely MAD..........Get Your Own House In Order.


Disagreed, but since your kind is exporting terrorism and mass murder, the West has no choice but to clean your house for you.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
Click to expand...

It depends on both the target and intentions.  In one the intention is a military target but involves collateral damage such as civilian casualties.  In the other it's a deliberate attempt to commit mass murder against civilians including children.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I Just speak the truthful and actual facts.....you Moron
> 
> So take your Terrorist Zionist Inspired  Bullshit and SHOVE IT IN YOUR LYING GOB
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome....and exactly what I expected.  The war will be short, but interesting.  It's time the West destroyed the archaic remains of the Moorish Empire and replaced it with modernity.   Many citizens of the ME will agree.
Click to expand...


Do you even know who the Moors were and where their empire was?


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I Just speak the truthful and actual facts.....you Moron
> 
> So take your Terrorist Zionist Inspired  Bullshit and SHOVE IT IN YOUR LYING GOB
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome....and exactly what I expected.  The war will be short, but interesting.  It's time the West destroyed the archaic remains of the Moorish Empire and replaced it with modernity.   Many citizens of the ME will agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even know who the Moors were and where their empire was?
Click to expand...

Yes, but, unfortunately, I don't have time to educate you.  Here is a link to get you started:  Moors - Wikipedia








Now, let's talk about MOAB's.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I Just speak the truthful and actual facts.....you Moron
> 
> So take your Terrorist Zionist Inspired  Bullshit and SHOVE IT IN YOUR LYING GOB
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome....and exactly what I expected.  The war will be short, but interesting.  It's time the West destroyed the archaic remains of the Moorish Empire and replaced it with modernity.   Many citizens of the ME will agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even know who the Moors were and where their empire was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but, unfortunately, I don't have time to educate you.  Here is a link to get you started:  Moors - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, let's talk about MOAB's.
Click to expand...


As I figured you ignorant piece of crap.  You haven't a clue who the Moors were nor where the Moorish Empire was.  Moron.


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> As I figured you ignorant piece of crap.....


The expected response from angry, highly emotional but poorly educated ISIS supporters.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I figured you ignorant piece of crap.....
> 
> 
> 
> The expected response from angry, highly emotional but poorly educated ISIS supporters.
Click to expand...


You clearly haven't a clue as to who the Moors were, nor where the Moorish empire was.  I have forgotten more than you will ever learn in your squalid life moron.  And, it is you and your moronic, uneducated ilk that are ISIS supporters.  

The quote _"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." _was developed for people like you.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly haven't a clue as to who the Moors were, nor where the Moorish empire was.  *I have forgotten more than you will ever learn in your squalid life moron.*  And, it is you and your moronic, uneducated ilk that are ISIS supporters.
> 
> The quote _"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." _was developed for people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Go back to ranting about the Jews and supporting Islamic Jihadic, Monte.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....I contend that Zionists, that are latter day Nazis in their mindset, are evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Zionists that believe that their child murdering is justified.  They cannot fathom the thought that bombing a school filled with children or an apartment building housing women and children is a murderous act.  The Zionists are psychopaths and they feel no guilt when they cause thousands of innocent deaths.  It is the rule in a Zionist state. The Zionists hope to achieve their political objectives through the murder of innocents.  But, the worlds is turning against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You don't know who the Moors were nor where their empire was.  Stop changing the subject.


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Go back to ranting about the Jews and supporting Islamic Jihadic, Monte.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....I contend that Zionists, that are latter day Nazis in their mindset, are evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Zionists that believe that their child murdering is justified.  They cannot fathom the thought that bombing a school filled with children or an apartment building housing women and children is a murderous act.  The Zionists are psychopaths and they feel no guilt when they cause thousands of innocent deaths.  It is the rule in a Zionist state. The Zionists hope to achieve their political objectives through the murder of innocents.  But, the worlds is turning against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know who the Moors were nor where their empire was.  Stop changing the subject.
Click to expand...

Truth hurts, eh? LOL


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Go back to ranting about the Jews and supporting Islamic Jihadic, Monte.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....I contend that Zionists, that are latter day Nazis in their mindset, are evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Zionists that believe that their child murdering is justified.  They cannot fathom the thought that bombing a school filled with children or an apartment building housing women and children is a murderous act.  The Zionists are psychopaths and they feel no guilt when they cause thousands of innocent deaths.  It is the rule in a Zionist state. The Zionists hope to achieve their political objectives through the murder of innocents.  But, the worlds is turning against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know who the Moors were nor where their empire was.  Stop changing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth hurts, eh? LOL
Click to expand...


It may hurt you as you haven't figured out who the Moors were nor where the Moorish empire was located.  As far as your libelous accusations.  Reported. I despise the Islamic cult, by the way.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Go back to ranting about the Jews and supporting Islamic Jihadic, Monte.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....I contend that Zionists, that are latter day Nazis in their mindset, are evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Zionists that believe that their child murdering is justified.  They cannot fathom the thought that bombing a school filled with children or an apartment building housing women and children is a murderous act.  The Zionists are psychopaths and they feel no guilt when they cause thousands of innocent deaths.  It is the rule in a Zionist state. The Zionists hope to achieve their political objectives through the murder of innocents.  But, the worlds is turning against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know who the Moors were nor where their empire was.  Stop changing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth hurts, eh? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may hurt you as you haven't figured out who the Moors were nor where the Moorish empire was located.  As far as your libelous accusations.  Reported. I despise the Islamic cult, by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know who the Moors are, but you are free to spin it as another of your Jihadist, antisemitic, anti-Zionist rants.
Click to expand...


No you didn't know who the Moors were nor where their empire was.  You conflated the Muslim conquests with the Moorish Empire.  Libel reported again.


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> ... Libel reported again.


It's not libel if you posted multiple pro-Palestinian terrorist/anti-Zionist posts.

I posted only two examples, you have dozens on this forum.

However, since you only *claim* to know more about the Moors, yet are oddly evasive about proving it, I can see there is nothing to be gained from discussing the topic with you.  

Have a really nice anti-Zionist/Pro-Palestinian day, Monte!


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Libel reported again.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not libel if you posted multiple pro-Palestinian terrorist/anti-Zionist posts.
> 
> I posted only two examples, you have dozens on this forum.
> 
> However, since you only *claim* to know more about the Moors, yet are oddly evasive about proving it, I can see there is nothing to be gained from discussing the topic with you.
> 
> Have a really nice anti-Zionist/Pro-Palestinian day, Monte!
Click to expand...


Anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism, just as being anti-fascist has nothing to do with being anti-Italian.  Supporting the Palestinian Christians has nothing to do with terrorism.  Your libel has been reported.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> You clearly haven't a clue as to who the Moors were, nor where the Moorish empire was.  I have forgotten more than you will ever learn in your squalid life moron.  And, it is you and your moronic, uneducated ilk that are ISIS supporters.
> 
> The quote _"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." _was developed for people like you.


And the grand wizard, monti, has spoken. We only wish we could be as 'educated' as you, good sir.


----------



## teddyearp

A slide back to the topic, there was a lot more going on in the rest of the middle east during this time that had some effect on the Mandate period on down.


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly haven't a clue as to who the Moors were, nor where the Moorish empire was.  I have forgotten more than you will ever learn in your squalid life moron.  And, it is you and your moronic, uneducated ilk that are ISIS supporters.
> 
> The quote _"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." _was developed for people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> And the grand wizard, monti, has spoken. We only wish we could be as 'educated' as you, good sir.
Click to expand...


I wasn't responding to you, but since you feel it important to accuse others of being members of the KKK if they criticize a racist and nationalist ideology such as Zionism (what's the difference between Zionism and Nazism when you come down to it), yes the world would be a better place if people were as educated as I am.  They wouldn't fall for the Hasbara propaganda that they have fallen for.


----------



## teddyearp

LOL! I was referring to your avatar. Sooo sensitive aren't you?


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> LOL! I was referring to your avatar. Sooo sensitive aren't you?



"Grand Wizard" leaves no doubt about what you were implying.


----------



## teddyearp

What is your avatar a picture of? Looks like a wizard to me. I used the adjective 'grand' because you so often boast of being smarter than anyone else. That is all.

If you want to think I meant something else, that's all on you, pal.


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> What is your avatar a picture of? Looks like a wizard to me. I used the adjective 'grand' because you so often boast of being smarter than anyone else. That is all.
> 
> If you want to think I meant something else, that's all on you, pal.



I never boast.  I state fact.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your avatar a picture of? Looks like a wizard to me. I used the adjective 'grand' because you so often boast of being smarter than anyone else. That is all.
> 
> If you want to think I meant something else, that's all on you, pal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never boast.  I state fact.
Click to expand...

So you are now stating that it is a FACT that you are smarter than anyone else. Nice.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends on both the target and intentions.  In one the intention is a military target but involves collateral damage such as civilian casualties.  In the other it's a deliberate attempt to commit mass murder against civilians including children.
Click to expand...


Really? Given the pervasive militarisation in Zionist society, the bus network, for example, plays is an integral part during periods of mobilisation, the Palestinian Resistence can legitimately argue that they have always pursued military targets who just happened to be surrounded by "civilian" human shields...


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I Just speak the truthful and actual facts.....you Moron
> 
> So take your Terrorist Zionist Inspired  Bullshit and SHOVE IT IN YOUR LYING GOB
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome....and exactly what I expected.  The war will be short, but interesting.  It's time the West destroyed the archaic remains of the Moorish Empire and replaced it with modernity.   Many citizens of the ME will agree.
Click to expand...


So what has Spain and North-west Africa got to do with the conflict between Zionist colonists and the indigenous native peoples of the Levant? Oh and as for those Moors, here's an interesting article for you. http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-how-african-muslims-civilized-spain/5583981

I suspect many nore citizens of the ME will tell you where you can shove your version of "modernity".


----------



## Challenger

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your avatar a picture of? Looks like a wizard to me. I used the adjective 'grand' because you so often boast of being smarter than anyone else. That is all.
> 
> If you want to think I meant something else, that's all on you, pal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never boast.  I state fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are now stating that it is a FACT that you are smarter than anyone else. Nice.
Click to expand...

...certainly he's smarter than you.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends on both the target and intentions.  In one the intention is a military target but involves collateral damage such as civilian casualties.  In the other it's a deliberate attempt to commit mass murder against civilians including children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Given the pervasive militarisation in Zionist society, the bus network, for example, plays is an integral part during periods of mobilisation, the Palestinian Resistence can legitimately argue that they have always pursued military targets who just happened to be surrounded by "civilian" human shields...
Click to expand...

Nice spin.  Fine.  You can continue to support flying airplanes into buildings, beheading journalists and suicide bombers on public transportation.  I'll continue to support Western ideals.  We'll see who wins in the end.


----------



## Divine Wind

teddyearp said:


> What is your avatar a picture of? Looks like a wizard to me. I used the adjective 'grand' because you so often boast of being smarter than anyone else. That is all.
> 
> If you want to think I meant something else, that's all on you, pal.


You are correct, Monte is not only overly sensitive, but he thinks he's smarter than anyone else and, as you've observed, he uses a wizard as an avatar.  In that case, Merlin from the TV mini-series "The Mists of Avalon". 

The Mists of Avalon (TV Mini-Series 2001– ) - IMDb

The Mists of Avalon Photos - The Mists of Avalon Picture Gallery - FamousFix






Time until Monte reports me for "libel":  10...9...8.....

Back on topic;  Israel was the only true democracy in the ME for decades.  They've been under constant attack for almost 70 years.  No wonder they act assholish at times, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the assholes attacking them who are causing the problems.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends on both the target and intentions.  In one the intention is a military target but involves collateral damage such as civilian casualties.  In the other it's a deliberate attempt to commit mass murder against civilians including children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Given the pervasive militarisation in Zionist society, the bus network, for example, plays is an integral part during periods of mobilisation, the Palestinian Resistence can legitimately argue that they have always pursued military targets who just happened to be surrounded by "civilian" human shields...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin.  Fine.  You can continue to support flying airplanes into buildings, beheading journalists and suicide bombers on public transportation.  I'll continue to support Western ideals.  We'll see who wins in the end.
Click to expand...


Do tell, how many members of Hamas flew planes into buildings or beheaded journalists? As I said earlier, suicide attacks or drone strikes, the effect is the same; each side just uses the best technology available to it. Western ideals? Oh, you mean control of the oil supply, got it.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Israel was the only true democracy in the ME for decades.



Drivel. Zionist Israel is what's known as an "Herrenvolk Democracy"- look it up. The other democracies in the Middle East were systematically destabilised or overthrown by "Western idealists" That's why they hate us out there.


----------



## Divine Wind

You are free to believe all actions are equal and the same.  Keep supporting your suicide bombers, trucks running over innocent people and Jihadists committing mass murder. I'll keep supporting Western ideals.  May we all live long enough to see who wins in the end.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> You are free to believe all actions are equal and the same.  Keep supporting your suicide bombers, trucks running over innocent people and Jihadists committing mass murder. I'll keep supporting Western ideals.  May we all live long enough to see who wins in the end.


Do tell, what "western ideals" do you support?


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe all actions are equal and the same.  Keep supporting your suicide bombers, trucks running over innocent people and Jihadists committing mass murder. I'll keep supporting Western ideals.  May we all live long enough to see who wins in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell, what "western ideals" do you support?
Click to expand...

Several but where this discussion is concerned, the ideal that deliberately targeting civilians in order to maximize casualties among innocent people, including children, is wrong.

You are free to claim killing everyone aboard a public bus is moral because a few onboard were IDF reservists carrying their weapons, but I disagree.  The idea of blowing up a bus is to kill everyone onboard.  Killing a few IDF reservists is just a bonus for people like you.


----------



## montelatici

The Israelis target civilians all the time.  That's how they hope to subjugate the non-Jews, through fear. 

This is a residential apartment building in Gaza housing more than 50 families, civilian men, women and children.  Attacking buses filled with IDF soldiers, reservists or active duty, is not terrorism. It's resisting a foreign military occupation force.

This is terrorism:




"...Israeli actions toward Palestinians are much worse: Israel is politically and strategically determined to subjugate the Gazans through fear. They do this through commando raids, mass arrests, and air strikes — all with the most sophisticated army Tel Aviv and its U.S. partners can buy. It has not gone unnoticed by all. ..............For Israel, the time will come when its remaining supporters in the U.S. government and establishment media will label Israel’s actions, if continued, as terrorism. It is already happening across the rest of the world including Europe. For the suffering Palestinians trapped in Gaza with nowhere to hide, this broader acknowledgment could not come soon enough."

Israel Terrorizes Palestinians in Gaza | The Huffington Post


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe all actions are equal and the same.  Keep supporting your suicide bombers, trucks running over innocent people and Jihadists committing mass murder. I'll keep supporting Western ideals.  May we all live long enough to see who wins in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell, what "western ideals" do you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Several but where this discussion is concerned, the ideal that deliberately targeting civilians in order to maximize casualties among innocent people, including children, is wrong.
> 
> You are free to claim killing everyone aboard a public bus is moral because a few onboard were IDF reservists carrying their weapons, but I disagree.  The idea of blowing up a bus is to kill everyone onboard.  Killing a few IDF reservists is just a bonus for people like you.
Click to expand...


You seem to jump to conclusions like a gazelle on steroids. "People like me?"  A white English Humanist?

Where is the moral (western) difference then, between a suicide bomber taking out a bus (an integral part of the Zionist military transport infrasturcture), killing both armed and unarmed reservists along with genuine civilians and a remotely controlled drone or smart missile demolishing a whole building full of genuine civilians in the hope that an enemy military commander or a few fighters may be taken out as well?


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> You seem to jump to conclusions like a gazelle on steroids. "People like me?"  A white English Humanist?...


Is that what you call terrorist supporters?  "A white English Humanist"?  Interesting.  You Brits have all kinds of different slang words like lorry for truck, lift for elevator, bonnet for car hood, fanny for beaver and now "A white English Humanist" for murdering suicide bomber.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Divine.Wind said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I figured you ignorant piece of crap.....
> 
> 
> 
> The expected response from angry, highly emotional but poorly educated ISIS supporters.
Click to expand...

*Weak Response Is Treason*

Anyone who doesn't advocate the confiscation of all Muslim oil and nuking Mecca is an ISIS supporter.  The first should have happened after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, the second after 9/11.  That was this century's Pearl Harbor, so Islam should have been punished the same way Japan was.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends on both the target and intentions.  In one the intention is a military target but involves collateral damage such as civilian casualties.  In the other it's a deliberate attempt to commit mass murder against civilians including children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Given the pervasive militarisation in Zionist society, the bus network, for example, plays is an integral part during periods of mobilisation, the Palestinian Resistence can legitimately argue that they have always pursued military targets who just happened to be surrounded by "civilian" human shields...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin.  Fine.  You can continue to support flying airplanes into buildings, beheading journalists and suicide bombers on public transportation.  I'll continue to support Western ideals.  We'll see who wins in the end.
Click to expand...


*Allowing Chickenhawks to Live Meant the Death of Civilization*

Appeasement is not a Western ideal; neither is having Rules of Engagement.


----------



## Divine Wind

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, is it the Jews or the Palestinians that strap on suicide belts and blow up city buses full of noncombatants or markets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends on both the target and intentions.  In one the intention is a military target but involves collateral damage such as civilian casualties.  In the other it's a deliberate attempt to commit mass murder against civilians including children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Given the pervasive militarisation in Zionist society, the bus network, for example, plays is an integral part during periods of mobilisation, the Palestinian Resistence can legitimately argue that they have always pursued military targets who just happened to be surrounded by "civilian" human shields...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin.  Fine.  You can continue to support flying airplanes into buildings, beheading journalists and suicide bombers on public transportation.  I'll continue to support Western ideals.  We'll see who wins in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing Chickenhawks to Live Meant the Death of Civilization*
> 
> Appeasement is not a Western ideal; neither is having Rules of Engagement.
Click to expand...

As a military man, I tend to agree, but as a civilized and educated American, I understand we should not be as brutal as the assholes we are fighting.  When we become like the terrorists, they've won, not us.  When we give up our ideals to fight an abusive, cruel and barbaric enemy, we lower ourselves to be equally abusive, cruel and barbaric.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Divine.Wind said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happens during American and Zionist Israeli drone strikes? The delivery systems may be different but the effect is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on both the target and intentions.  In one the intention is a military target but involves collateral damage such as civilian casualties.  In the other it's a deliberate attempt to commit mass murder against civilians including children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Given the pervasive militarisation in Zionist society, the bus network, for example, plays is an integral part during periods of mobilisation, the Palestinian Resistence can legitimately argue that they have always pursued military targets who just happened to be surrounded by "civilian" human shields...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin.  Fine.  You can continue to support flying airplanes into buildings, beheading journalists and suicide bombers on public transportation.  I'll continue to support Western ideals.  We'll see who wins in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing Chickenhawks to Live Meant the Death of Civilization*
> 
> Appeasement is not a Western ideal; neither is having Rules of Engagement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a military man, I tend to agree, but as a civilized and educated American, I understand we should not be as brutal as the assholes we are fighting.  When we become like the terrorists, they've won, not us.
Click to expand...

*VICTORY Is the Only Rule of Engagement*

That's what you're told to feel by ignorant weakling pacifist traitors.  Instead of this nonsense of "sinking to the enemy's level," you should think of it as crawling into the mud with them and fighting it out there where they have set up the arena. I'm sure that when guns were first invented, some fools thought it was more honorable to fight it out face-to-face with swords. The epitaph of their gravestones was WE DIDN'T SINK TO THEIR LEVEL.  INSTEAD, WE SANK SIX FEET UNDER.


----------



## Divine Wind

The Sage of Main Street said:


> .... The epitaph of their gravestones was WE DIDN'T SINK TO THEIR LEVEL.  INSTEAD, WE SANK SIX FEET UNDER.


Which is not a problem for those who think in spiritual terms.

Still, the logic of rolling in the gutter with barbarians makes as little sense as "We had to burn the village in order to save it".  

What good does it do to fight for America if we destroy it by letting go of American ideals?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Divine.Wind said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... The epitaph of their gravestones was WE DIDN'T SINK TO THEIR LEVEL.  INSTEAD, WE SANK SIX FEET UNDER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good does it do to fight for America if we destroy it by letting go of American ideals?
Click to expand...

*It Is a Contradiction to Call Anyone in a Combat Zone a "Non-Combatant"*

Being queasy about what you have to do to win is a recipe for defeat.  It also shows contempt for fighting men, saying it is OK to shoot those on the other side and let them die screaming, as long as we don't harm their human shields.  And you dishonestly use examples that don't apply, equivalent to "If someone is raping my daughter, I have the right to rape his daughter" instead of "I have the right to kill him."

A less-sensitive generation had no problem bombing enemy civilians--old people, women, and children--in World War II.  Or do you think we should be ashamed of winning that one, "Because it made us sink to the level of the Nazis"?  I can picture what would have happened to childish pacifist protesters calling the Army Air Corps "babykillers."


----------



## Divine Wind

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... The epitaph of their gravestones was WE DIDN'T SINK TO THEIR LEVEL.  INSTEAD, WE SANK SIX FEET UNDER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good does it do to fight for America if we destroy it by letting go of American ideals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It Is a Contradiction to Call Anyone in a Combat Zone a "Non-Combatant"*
> 
> Being queasy about what you have to do to win is a recipe for defeat.  It also shows contempt for fighting men, saying it is OK to shoot those on the other side and let them die screaming, as long as we don't harm their human shields.  And you dishonestly use examples that don't apply, equivalent to "If someone is raping my daughter, I have the right to rape his daughter" instead of "I have the right to kill him."
> 
> A less-sensitive generation had no problem bombing enemy civilians--old people, women, and children--in World War II.  Or do you think we should be ashamed of winning that one, "Because it made us sink to the level of the Nazis"?  I can picture what would have happened to childish pacifist protesters calling the Army Air Corps "babykillers."
Click to expand...

Disagreed.  If a seven year old is carrying a grenade to a group of GIs, yes, do what you need to do.  If a sniper is running away and happens to run through a crowd of children, no, you not mow everyone down.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Divine.Wind said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... The epitaph of their gravestones was WE DIDN'T SINK TO THEIR LEVEL.  INSTEAD, WE SANK SIX FEET UNDER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good does it do to fight for America if we destroy it by letting go of American ideals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It Is a Contradiction to Call Anyone in a Combat Zone a "Non-Combatant"*
> 
> Being queasy about what you have to do to win is a recipe for defeat.  It also shows contempt for fighting men, saying it is OK to shoot those on the other side and let them die screaming, as long as we don't harm their human shields.  And you dishonestly use examples that don't apply, equivalent to "If someone is raping my daughter, I have the right to rape his daughter" instead of "I have the right to kill him."
> 
> A less-sensitive generation had no problem bombing enemy civilians--old people, women, and children--in World War II.  Or do you think we should be ashamed of winning that one, "Because it made us sink to the level of the Nazis"?  I can picture what would have happened to childish pacifist protesters calling the Army Air Corps "babykillers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagreed.  If a seven year old is carrying a grenade to a group of GIs, yes, do what you need to do.  If a sniper is running away and happens to run through a crowd of children, no, you not mow everyone down.
Click to expand...

*Get Off Your High Horse; It Makes Your Ass Look Big*

Let him live to later kill your men?  We really need a draft to send your own kind to war if that's the only way you'll wake up about what needs to be done on the battlefield.  Pacifists aren't idealists; they are self-righteous cowards and traitors who prefer to live in a childish fantasy world. That's why we must eliminate the "conscientious" objector privilege


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## abu afak

Whenever I seed PF Tinhead showing at the end of a string..
I KNOW it's a Boobtube withOUT a word.
Tinhead is a Non-conversant TROLL.
.


----------



## Challenger

abu afak said:


> Whenever I seed PF Tinhead showing at the end of a string..
> I KNOW it's a Boobtube withOUT a word.
> Tinhead is a Non-conversant TROLL.
> .


At least he can spell; it takes one to know one, I suppose.


----------



## theliq

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on both the target and intentions.  In one the intention is a military target but involves collateral damage such as civilian casualties.  In the other it's a deliberate attempt to commit mass murder against civilians including children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Given the pervasive militarisation in Zionist society, the bus network, for example, plays is an integral part during periods of mobilisation, the Palestinian Resistence can legitimately argue that they have always pursued military targets who just happened to be surrounded by "civilian" human shields...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice spin.  Fine.  You can continue to support flying airplanes into buildings, beheading journalists and suicide bombers on public transportation.  I'll continue to support Western ideals.  We'll see who wins in the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Allowing Chickenhawks to Live Meant the Death of Civilization*
> 
> Appeasement is not a Western ideal; neither is having Rules of Engagement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a military man, I tend to agree, but as a civilized and educated American, I understand we should not be as brutal as the assholes we are fighting.  When we become like the terrorists, they've won, not us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *VICTORY Is the Only Rule of Engagement*
> 
> That's what you're told to feel by ignorant weakling pacifist traitors.  Instead of this nonsense of "sinking to the enemy's level," you should think of it as crawling into the mud with them and fighting it out there where they have set up the arena. I'm sure that when guns were first invented, some fools thought it was more honorable to fight it out face-to-face with swords. The epitaph of their gravestones was WE DIDN'T SINK TO THEIR LEVEL.  INSTEAD, WE SANK SIX FEET UNDER.
Click to expand...

America Have Engagement but NEVER VICTORY.....as in Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria....You talk big but fight like shit.and leave shit where ever you roam...and you often stoop well below your combatants Level......What Planet have you just Arrived from ?????????????????


----------



## theliq

abu afak said:


> Whenever I seed PF Tinhead showing at the end of a string..
> I KNOW it's a Boobtube withOUT a word.
> Tinhead is a Non-conversant TROLL.
> .


You can spew and slight (in your mushed mind) Tinnie all you like....but I have his back,like so many good folk on here....I can only say about you IS,that YOU ARE A LOUDMOUTH,DISRESPECTFUL,LOWLIFE...hence return to the GUTTER WHENCE YOU CAME........Loony


----------



## theliq

Challenger said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I seed PF Tinhead showing at the end of a string..
> I KNOW it's a Boobtube withOUT a word.
> Tinhead is a Non-conversant TROLL.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> At least he can spell; it takes one to know one, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Challenger do not respond to the Filth afak..........because he demeans your,Tinnies,Monte's and my intelligence and frankly is not worth a Tinkers Ring..steve


----------



## Challenger

theliq said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I seed PF Tinhead showing at the end of a string..
> I KNOW it's a Boobtube withOUT a word.
> Tinhead is a Non-conversant TROLL.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> At least he can spell; it takes one to know one, I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Challenger do not respond to the Filth afak..........because he demeans your,Tinnies,Monte's and my intelligence and frankly is not worth a Tinkers Ring..steve
Click to expand...


I know, he caught me in a bad mood where I felt like slapping someone, he/she/it just happened to be there at the time...


----------



## Divine Wind

theliq said:


> *America Have Engagement but NEVER VICTORY*.....as in Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria....You talk big but fight like shit.and leave shit where ever you roam...and you often stoop well below your combatants Level......What Planet have you just Arrived from ?????????????????


LOL.   Tell that to all the dead terrorist leaders.    American tech has reduced the terrorist leadership structure down to the Arab equivalent of Moe, Larry and Curly.  The Islamic Jihad has been reduced to mentally ill Muslims running over innocent women and children with trucks.   Aside from US drones blowing up the occasion terrorist leader, the main "meeting of the minds" will be when the Euros finally get fed up with Jihadists and go to the ME to clean house.


----------



## theliq

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> *America Have Engagement but NEVER VICTORY*.....as in Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria....You talk big but fight like shit.and leave shit where ever you roam...and you often stoop well below your combatants Level......What Planet have you just Arrived from ?????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.   Tell that to all the dead terrorist leaders.    American tech has reduced the terrorist leadership structure down to the Arab equivalent of Moe, Larry and Curly.  The Islamic Jihad has been reduced to mentally ill Muslims running over innocent women and children with trucks.   Aside from US drones blowing up the occasion terrorist leader, the main "meeting of the minds" will be when the Euros finally get fed up with Jihadists and go to the ME to clean house.
> 
> View attachment 126084
Click to expand...

Huh,Shame you trained the 9/11 Bastards   to fly then


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> *America Have Engagement but NEVER VICTORY*.....as in Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria....You talk big but fight like shit.and leave shit where ever you roam...and you often stoop well below your combatants Level......What Planet have you just Arrived from ?????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.   Tell that to all the dead terrorist leaders.    American tech has reduced the terrorist leadership structure down to the Arab equivalent of Moe, Larry and Curly.  The Islamic Jihad has been reduced to mentally ill Muslims running over innocent women and children with trucks.   Aside from US drones blowing up the occasion terrorist leader, the main "meeting of the minds" will be when the Euros finally get fed up with Jihadists and go to the ME to clean house.
> 
> View attachment 126084
Click to expand...


America has been fighting it's "war on terror" for 15+ years now, and they're still all still there fighting back, regardless of how many drones kill their leaders. Sadly the U.S. has no strategy, no plan and no end game, just endless war enriching the weapons makers...maybe that was the plan all along.


----------



## Divine Wind

theliq said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> *America Have Engagement but NEVER VICTORY*.....as in Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria....You talk big but fight like shit.and leave shit where ever you roam...and you often stoop well below your combatants Level......What Planet have you just Arrived from ?????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.   Tell that to all the dead terrorist leaders.    American tech has reduced the terrorist leadership structure down to the Arab equivalent of Moe, Larry and Curly.  The Islamic Jihad has been reduced to mentally ill Muslims running over innocent women and children with trucks.   Aside from US drones blowing up the occasion terrorist leader, the main "meeting of the minds" will be when the Euros finally get fed up with Jihadists and go to the ME to clean house.
> 
> View attachment 126084
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh,Shame you trained the 9/11 Bastards   to fly then
Click to expand...

LOL.   The hazard of living in a free country instead of a Third World shithole.  No matter, we made the bastards pay.....and will continue to do so for a few more years.   What I'm looking forward to is seeing a much more active participation by the Euros in neutralizing the Jihadist scumbags.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> *America Have Engagement but NEVER VICTORY*.....as in Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria....You talk big but fight like shit.and leave shit where ever you roam...and you often stoop well below your combatants Level......What Planet have you just Arrived from ?????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.   Tell that to all the dead terrorist leaders.    American tech has reduced the terrorist leadership structure down to the Arab equivalent of Moe, Larry and Curly.  The Islamic Jihad has been reduced to mentally ill Muslims running over innocent women and children with trucks.   Aside from US drones blowing up the occasion terrorist leader, the main "meeting of the minds" will be when the Euros finally get fed up with Jihadists and go to the ME to clean house.
> 
> View attachment 126084
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America has been fighting it's "war on terror" for 15+ years now, and they're still all still there fighting back, regardless of how many drones kill their leaders. Sadly the U.S. has no strategy, no plan and no end game, just endless war enriching the weapons makers...maybe that was the plan all along.
Click to expand...

Disagreed.  As previously posted, it should get a lot more interesting when the Euros take a much more active role in killing off these scumbags.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> *America Have Engagement but NEVER VICTORY*.....as in Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria....You talk big but fight like shit.and leave shit where ever you roam...and you often stoop well below your combatants Level......What Planet have you just Arrived from ?????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.   Tell that to all the dead terrorist leaders.    American tech has reduced the terrorist leadership structure down to the Arab equivalent of Moe, Larry and Curly.  The Islamic Jihad has been reduced to mentally ill Muslims running over innocent women and children with trucks.   Aside from US drones blowing up the occasion terrorist leader, the main "meeting of the minds" will be when the Euros finally get fed up with Jihadists and go to the ME to clean house.
> 
> View attachment 126084
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America has been fighting it's "war on terror" for 15+ years now, and they're still all still there fighting back, regardless of how many drones kill their leaders. Sadly the U.S. has no strategy, no plan and no end game, just endless war enriching the weapons makers...maybe that was the plan all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagreed.  As previously posted, it should get a lot more interesting when the Euros take a much more active role in killing off these scumbags.
Click to expand...


Perhaps European weapons manufacturers might want a piece of the action, but I don't see europe wanting any entanglemets in the Middle East aster seeing the mess the U.S. has made.

"Yet the German public has become even more opposed to military engagement overseas than it was 10 years ago, calling into question what sort of role the Bundeswehr will play in supporting NATO and the United Nations in future international conflicts." Learning to Fight: How Afghanistan Changed the German Military - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Perhaps European weapons manufacturers might want a piece of the action, but I don't see europe wanting any entanglemets in the Middle East aster seeing the mess the U.S. has made.....


Feel free to put forth all the conspiracy theories you like but the fact remains if terrorists keep pushing the Euro's buttons, the Euros, like the US did after 9/11, won't cower.  They'll attack.  HARD. 

We could easily see Eastern and Western Europe united in a military effort to go into the Middle East and clean house of all Jihadists once and for all.


----------



## Challenger

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps European weapons manufacturers might want a piece of the action, but I don't see europe wanting any entanglemets in the Middle East aster seeing the mess the U.S. has made.....
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to put forth all the conspiracy theories you like but the fact remains if terrorists keep pushing the Euro's buttons, the Euros, like the US did after 9/11, won't cower.  They'll attack.  HARD.
> 
> We could easily see Eastern and Western Europe united in a military effort to go into the Middle East and clean house of all Jihadists once and for all.
Click to expand...


Well that might be the view from Texas, but over here in Europe there's no real appetite for getting stuck in a quagmire not of our making.


----------



## Divine Wind

Challenger said:


> Well that might be the view from Texas, but over here in Europe there's no real appetite for getting stuck in a quagmire not of our making.


In "Europe"?  The EU is falling apart and, if terrorists keep murdering innocent Euros without EU reprisals against those supporting the terrorism, the fractures in the EU will widen. 

Anyone who thinks Jihadist terrorism will stop anytime soon without action against them are deluding themselves.   Anyone who thinks that "if only the West would leave the ME, peace would reign over the land" is equally delusional.   The time is coming where the nations of civilization will have a meeting of the minds with those who support the anachronistic barbarism of radical Islam.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The security Council did nothing to implement Resolution 181.

Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> The security Council did nothing to implement Resolution 181.
> 
> Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.
> 
> All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss


I think Tinmore's had too much to drink today.

In fact, after following his link above, I know he has.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



Maybe consider cutting and pasting the YouTube video across more threads than you already have.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe consider cutting and pasting the YouTube video across more threads than you already have.
Click to expand...

The truth hurts.


----------



## montelatici

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that might be the view from Texas, but over here in Europe there's no real appetite for getting stuck in a quagmire not of our making.
> 
> 
> 
> In "Europe"?  The EU is falling apart and, if terrorists keep murdering innocent Euros without EU reprisals against those supporting the terrorism, the fractures in the EU will widen.
> 
> Anyone who thinks Jihadist terrorism will stop anytime soon without action against them are deluding themselves.   Anyone who thinks that "if only the West would leave the ME, peace would reign over the land" is equally delusional.   The time is coming where the nations of civilization will have a meeting of the minds with those who support the anachronistic barbarism of radical Islam.
Click to expand...




Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that might be the view from Texas, but over here in Europe there's no real appetite for getting stuck in a quagmire not of our making.
> 
> 
> 
> In "Europe"?  The EU is falling apart and, if terrorists keep murdering innocent Euros without EU reprisals against those supporting the terrorism, the fractures in the EU will widen.
> 
> Anyone who thinks Jihadist terrorism will stop anytime soon without action against them are deluding themselves.   Anyone who thinks that "if only the West would leave the ME, peace would reign over the land" is equally delusional.   The time is coming where the nations of civilization will have a meeting of the minds with those who support the anachronistic barbarism of radical Islam.
Click to expand...


The EU is falling apart?  It is stronger now than it's ever been.


----------



## Divine Wind

montelatici said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that might be the view from Texas, but over here in Europe there's no real appetite for getting stuck in a quagmire not of our making.
> 
> 
> 
> In "Europe"?  The EU is falling apart and, if terrorists keep murdering innocent Euros without EU reprisals against those supporting the terrorism, the fractures in the EU will widen.
> 
> Anyone who thinks Jihadist terrorism will stop anytime soon without action against them are deluding themselves.   Anyone who thinks that "if only the West would leave the ME, peace would reign over the land" is equally delusional.   The time is coming where the nations of civilization will have a meeting of the minds with those who support the anachronistic barbarism of radical Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that might be the view from Texas, but over here in Europe there's no real appetite for getting stuck in a quagmire not of our making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In "Europe"?  The EU is falling apart and, if terrorists keep murdering innocent Euros without EU reprisals against those supporting the terrorism, the fractures in the EU will widen.
> 
> Anyone who thinks Jihadist terrorism will stop anytime soon without action against them are deluding themselves.   Anyone who thinks that "if only the West would leave the ME, peace would reign over the land" is equally delusional.   The time is coming where the nations of civilization will have a meeting of the minds with those who support the anachronistic barbarism of radical Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The EU is falling apart?  It is stronger now than it's ever been.
Click to expand...

LOL.   Okay.  We'll see what happens after the Euros lose a few dozen more women and children to Jihadists.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*History of Palestine Israel Conflict - Zionist Story *

**


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


First lie:

Netanyahu claimed to have left Gaza.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First lie:
> 
> Netanyahu claimed to have left Gaza.
Click to expand...


Your first instance of being befuddled.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


>


Make a Hong Cong out of Gaza.

Without trade, travel, and tourism?

More Israeli bullshit.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make a Hong Cong out of Gaza.
> 
> Without trade, travel, and tourism?
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
Click to expand...


So, _The Zionists_™ did withdraw. You just want your usual excuses for whining and a reason for retreating from your earlier nonsense claims.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make a Hong Cong out of Gaza.
> 
> Without trade, travel, and tourism?
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, _The Zionists_™ did withdraw. You just want your usual excuses for whining and a reason for retreating from your earlier nonsense claims.
Click to expand...

Just another of Israel's looooooooooooooooooong list of lies.

Israel actively patrols Gaza airspace. Israel actively patrols Gaza territorial waters. Israel continues to have "boots on the ground" in both incidences. Israel maintains a spy network inside Gaza violating their sovereignty. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill fishermen in their own territorial waters. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill Palestinians working their own land in their own territory. Israel regularly enters Gaza with tanks and bulldozers to destroy crops and farms.

So, this is what the liars call a full withdrawal.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make a Hong Cong out of Gaza.
> 
> Without trade, travel, and tourism?
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, _The Zionists_™ did withdraw. You just want your usual excuses for whining and a reason for retreating from your earlier nonsense claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another of Israel's looooooooooooooooooong list of lies.
> 
> Israel actively patrols Gaza airspace. Israel actively patrols Gaza territorial waters. Israel continues to have "boots on the ground" in both incidences. Israel maintains a spy network inside Gaza violating their sovereignty. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill fishermen in their own territorial waters. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill Palestinians working their own land in their own territory. Israel regularly enters Gaza with tanks and bulldozers to destroy crops and farms.
> 
> So, this is what the liars call a full withdrawal.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make a Hong Cong out of Gaza.
> 
> Without trade, travel, and tourism?
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, _The Zionists_™ did withdraw. You just want your usual excuses for whining and a reason for retreating from your earlier nonsense claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another of Israel's looooooooooooooooooong list of lies.
> 
> Israel actively patrols Gaza airspace. Israel actively patrols Gaza territorial waters. Israel continues to have "boots on the ground" in both incidences. Israel maintains a spy network inside Gaza violating their sovereignty. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill fishermen in their own territorial waters. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill Palestinians working their own land in their own territory. Israel regularly enters Gaza with tanks and bulldozers to destroy crops and farms.
> 
> So, this is what the liars call a full withdrawal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Links to what? What part do you say is not true.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make a Hong Cong out of Gaza.
> 
> Without trade, travel, and tourism?
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, _The Zionists_™ did withdraw. You just want your usual excuses for whining and a reason for retreating from your earlier nonsense claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another of Israel's looooooooooooooooooong list of lies.
> 
> Israel actively patrols Gaza airspace. Israel actively patrols Gaza territorial waters. Israel continues to have "boots on the ground" in both incidences. Israel maintains a spy network inside Gaza violating their sovereignty. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill fishermen in their own territorial waters. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill Palestinians working their own land in their own territory. Israel regularly enters Gaza with tanks and bulldozers to destroy crops and farms.
> 
> So, this is what the liars call a full withdrawal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links to what? What part do you say is not true.
Click to expand...


No links, huh. Another of your blustering claims you retreat from.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make a Hong Cong out of Gaza.
> 
> Without trade, travel, and tourism?
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, _The Zionists_™ did withdraw. You just want your usual excuses for whining and a reason for retreating from your earlier nonsense claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another of Israel's looooooooooooooooooong list of lies.
> 
> Israel actively patrols Gaza airspace. Israel actively patrols Gaza territorial waters. Israel continues to have "boots on the ground" in both incidences. Israel maintains a spy network inside Gaza violating their sovereignty. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill fishermen in their own territorial waters. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill Palestinians working their own land in their own territory. Israel regularly enters Gaza with tanks and bulldozers to destroy crops and farms.
> 
> So, this is what the liars call a full withdrawal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links to what? What part do you say is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No links, huh. Another of your blustering claims you retreat from.
Click to expand...

There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?

A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.

Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.

Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.

Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, _The Zionists_™ did withdraw. You just want your usual excuses for whining and a reason for retreating from your earlier nonsense claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Just another of Israel's looooooooooooooooooong list of lies.
> 
> Israel actively patrols Gaza airspace. Israel actively patrols Gaza territorial waters. Israel continues to have "boots on the ground" in both incidences. Israel maintains a spy network inside Gaza violating their sovereignty. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill fishermen in their own territorial waters. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill Palestinians working their own land in their own territory. Israel regularly enters Gaza with tanks and bulldozers to destroy crops and farms.
> 
> So, this is what the liars call a full withdrawal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links to what? What part do you say is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No links, huh. Another of your blustering claims you retreat from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?
> 
> A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.
> 
> Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.
> 
> Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.
> 
> Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the electronic gee-had. 

Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another of Israel's looooooooooooooooooong list of lies.
> 
> Israel actively patrols Gaza airspace. Israel actively patrols Gaza territorial waters. Israel continues to have "boots on the ground" in both incidences. Israel maintains a spy network inside Gaza violating their sovereignty. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill fishermen in their own territorial waters. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill Palestinians working their own land in their own territory. Israel regularly enters Gaza with tanks and bulldozers to destroy crops and farms.
> 
> So, this is what the liars call a full withdrawal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links to what? What part do you say is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No links, huh. Another of your blustering claims you retreat from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?
> 
> A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.
> 
> Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.
> 
> Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.
> 
> Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I couldn't find anything in israelibullshit.il


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another of Israel's looooooooooooooooooong list of lies.
> 
> Israel actively patrols Gaza airspace. Israel actively patrols Gaza territorial waters. Israel continues to have "boots on the ground" in both incidences. Israel maintains a spy network inside Gaza violating their sovereignty. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill fishermen in their own territorial waters. Israel continues to shoot at and sometimes kill Palestinians working their own land in their own territory. Israel regularly enters Gaza with tanks and bulldozers to destroy crops and farms.
> 
> So, this is what the liars call a full withdrawal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links to what? What part do you say is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No links, huh. Another of your blustering claims you retreat from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?
> 
> A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.
> 
> Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.
> 
> Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.
> 
> Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
Click to expand...

Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.

Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers

In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.

Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> Links to what? What part do you say is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No links, huh. Another of your blustering claims you retreat from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?
> 
> A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.
> 
> Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.
> 
> Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.
> 
> Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.
> 
> Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers
> 
> In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.
> 
> Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops
Click to expand...


I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.

It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links to what? What part do you say is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No links, huh. Another of your blustering claims you retreat from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?
> 
> A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.
> 
> Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.
> 
> Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.
> 
> Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.
> 
> Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers
> 
> In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.
> 
> Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.
> 
> It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.
Click to expand...

You wanted links. Why the bitch?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No links, huh. Another of your blustering claims you retreat from.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?
> 
> A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.
> 
> Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.
> 
> Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.
> 
> Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.
> 
> Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers
> 
> In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.
> 
> Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.
> 
> It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanted links. Why the bitch?
Click to expand...


I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable. 

What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?
> 
> A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.
> 
> Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.
> 
> Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.
> 
> Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.
> 
> Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers
> 
> In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.
> 
> Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.
> 
> It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanted links. Why the bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable.
> 
> What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that my links are biased toward the truth.

You don't refute. You only criticize.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot there. What do you disagree with that you would like me to prove?
> 
> A Palestinian protester died after he was shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip late Tuesday night.
> 
> Seven others were reported to have been shot and moderately wounded.
> 
> Israeli soldiers operate under an apparent shoot-to-kill policy in Gaza’s boundary areas. Two Palestinian fishermen have died this year as a result of being fired on by the Israeli navy off the Gaza coast, and in March, a 15-year-old Palestinian was killed when he was shot in the head near Gaza’s boundary with Israel.
> 
> Israeli forces kill Palestinian protester in Gaza
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.
> 
> Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers
> 
> In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.
> 
> Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.
> 
> It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanted links. Why the bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable.
> 
> What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.
Click to expand...

You always bitch about "cutting and pasting" but isn't that what links are for?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.
> 
> Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers
> 
> In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.
> 
> Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.
> 
> It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanted links. Why the bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable.
> 
> What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always bitch about "cutting and pasting" but isn't that what links are for?
Click to expand...


Sure. Interesting your links never refuted the withdrawal by Israel from Gaza.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the electronic gee-had.
> 
> Why don't you give us a bit more information on the events surrounding your cut and paste article.
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.
> 
> Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers
> 
> In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.
> 
> Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.
> 
> It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanted links. Why the bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable.
> 
> What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry that my links are biased toward the truth.
> 
> You don't refute. You only criticize.
Click to expand...


You don't refute, you mindlessly cut and paste.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally to the problem with water and electricity there are constant attacks on farmers by Israeli snipers and periodic incursions of military bulldozers to raze agricultural land.
> 
> Israeli attacks on Gaza farmers
> 
> In 2015, the Israeli army opened fire 194 times along the border line of the Gaza Strip. It also made 44 incursions, according to the annual report on the most prominent Israeli violations issued by the Hemaya Center for Human Rights in January.
> 
> Read more: Gaza farmers dodge bullets to harvest crops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.
> 
> It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanted links. Why the bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable.
> 
> What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always bitch about "cutting and pasting" but isn't that what links are for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Interesting your links never refuted the withdrawal by Israel from Gaza.
Click to expand...

Sure they did. Israel is still there shooting at people in their own territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, So, I suppose those incidents are really just about _The Zionists_™ having not much to do except antagonize Islamics.
> 
> It's odd how your selected cut and paste articles seem to indicate that Islamic terrorists are just poor, hapless victims.
> 
> 
> 
> You wanted links. Why the bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable.
> 
> What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always bitch about "cutting and pasting" but isn't that what links are for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Interesting your links never refuted the withdrawal by Israel from Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. Israel is still there shooting at people in their own territory.
Click to expand...


When those people are attacking, yes, there will be consequences.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wanted links. Why the bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable.
> 
> What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always bitch about "cutting and pasting" but isn't that what links are for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Interesting your links never refuted the withdrawal by Israel from Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. Israel is still there shooting at people in their own territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When those people are attacking, yes, there will be consequences.
Click to expand...

Picking beans or catching fish is attacking?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was expecting a lot of cutting and pasting from sources with an obvious bias. You are certainly predictable.
> 
> What a shame Islamic terrorists are always such victims.
> 
> 
> 
> You always bitch about "cutting and pasting" but isn't that what links are for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Interesting your links never refuted the withdrawal by Israel from Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. Israel is still there shooting at people in their own territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When those people are attacking, yes, there will be consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking beans or catching fish is attacking?
Click to expand...


What we find from your sources is that there's more to the story than what is reported by the electronic gee-had.


----------



## louie888

Obviously, we are inundated here daily with zionist lies and I think it is necessary to break them up one by one if we wish to rid this forum of such obvious bullshit. This is the original one and if we can get past this, which is quite simple, then we can actually make progress.

I know israel's mouthpieces actually believe this as they were brainwashed with this obvious lie since birth, but the fact remains that *there were people there.* There were many people there. There were 100s of 1000s in fact.

Please research yourselves (for the loud little handful that does not believe me) before replying/trolling this thread. 

Good luck and let there be PEACE!


----------



## aris2chat

Jews were there.  Assorted other groups were there, religious and racial.
Ottoman, British and Arabs welcomed a Jewish homeland............ 
the mufti and others called the death of jews
Arabs had Jordan, more than 4 times the size of Israel.
the arabs that later called themselves palestinians in the west bank were offered citizenship and responded with an attempted coup.

The dispute is not about palestinian having land, it is about their desire to destroy Israel.

Israel arabs are a vital part of the population in Israel.  Arabs that want to be Israelis, not fight them.


----------



## Hollie

louie888 said:


> Obviously, we are inundated here daily with zionist lies and I think it is necessary to break them up one by one if we wish to rid this forum of such obvious bullshit. This is the original one and if we can get past this, which is quite simple, then we can actually make progress.
> 
> I know israel's mouthpieces actually believe this as they were brainwashed with this obvious lie since birth, but the fact remains that *there were people there.* There were many people there. There were 100s of 1000s in fact.
> 
> Please research yourselves (for the loud little handful that does not believe me) before replying/trolling this thread.
> 
> Good luck and let there be PEACE!



The thread title claims to have debunked something but you failed to identify what that "something" was.

You wrote "*there were people there." *in bolded text but you failed to identify where "there" was.

Multiple failures. You have been brainwashed that failure is a positive attribute.


----------



## louie888

The title of this thread is the lie that started it all.

Again, Please research yourselves (for the loud little handful that does not believe me) before replying/trolling this thread.


----------



## Hollie

louie888 said:


> The title of this thread is the lie that started it all.
> 
> Again, Please research yourselves (for the loud little handful that does not believe me) before replying/trolling this thread.


What lie?


----------



## Roudy

Hollie said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of this thread is the lie that started it all.
> 
> Again, Please research yourselves (for the loud little handful that does not believe me) before replying/trolling this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> What lie?
Click to expand...

The lie that Achmed Louie just told.


----------



## aris2chat

Population
1860 it was *411,000*
1900 *about 600,000*

The land was under populated and under developed.  It was not producing enough the cover the cost of operation in what became the mandate.  It was  money pit.

Jews turned it in to one of the 20 best economies 

Palestinians are operating on global welfare are fighting with each other 

Gaza will have to loose again, thanks to Taylor Force Act, because they continue to pay terrorists


----------



## louie888

OK, even *aris2chat* admits there were in fact people there. Let's see if the rest of you can get on board.


----------



## Hollie

louie888 said:


> OK, even *aris2chat* admits there were in fact people there. Let's see if the rest of you can get on board.


Why do you believe there were no people there?


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> Jews were there.  Assorted other groups were there, religious and racial.
> Ottoman, British and Arabs welcomed a Jewish homeland............
> the mufti and others called the death of jews
> Arabs had Jordan, more than 4 times the size of Israel.
> the arabs that later called themselves palestinians in the west bank were offered citizenship and responded with an attempted coup.
> 
> The dispute is not about palestinian having land, it is about their desire to destroy Israel.
> 
> Israel arabs are a vital part of the population in Israel.  Arabs that want to be Israelis, not fight them.



If the Ottomans welcomed a Jewish homeland, why did the pass laws preventing Jews from settling in Palestine? It is amazing what brainwashing can do. 

"The Council of Ministers considered the question and *in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, **excluding Palestine.* They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects 

With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882: 

The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine*. They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire."

http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were there.  Assorted other groups were there, religious and racial.
> Ottoman, British and Arabs welcomed a Jewish homeland............
> the mufti and others called the death of jews
> Arabs had Jordan, more than 4 times the size of Israel.
> the arabs that later called themselves palestinians in the west bank were offered citizenship and responded with an attempted coup.
> 
> The dispute is not about palestinian having land, it is about their desire to destroy Israel.
> 
> Israel arabs are a vital part of the population in Israel.  Arabs that want to be Israelis, not fight them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Ottomans welcomed a Jewish homeland, why did the pass laws preventing Jews from settling in Palestine? It is amazing what brainwashing can do.
> 
> "The Council of Ministers considered the question and *in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, **excluding Palestine.* They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects
> 
> With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882:
> 
> The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine*. They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire."
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf
Click to expand...


You can read your Koran to find an answer to the question posed in the first sentence.

It's amazing what Islamic fascism can do.


----------



## aris2chat

louie888 said:


> OK, even *aris2chat* admits there were in fact people there. Let's see if the rest of you can get on board.




People in the handful of sanjuks that later made up the mandate......not palestinians

Saying palestine was like saying africa or europe

The name is a roman insult to the population at the time.  At one time beside the other regions, there were three philistia that consisted of mostly gaza and sinai


----------



## P F Tinmore

Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.



Those invading A-rabs sure made a mess of things.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.



Some 400 towns and villages lost the majority of their arab population as "palestinian refuges" ran, because of arab calls by radio and news, so arab tanks  could destroy the jews.

Some were renamed.  They were not all destroyed.  New infrastructure, homes and businesses had to be built.

Not all the land was "owned" by palestinian refugees.  Many were tenant farmers, share croppers, and seasonal workers for land lords.  A lot of land was sold at several times its value to jews.

Those homes and villages that engaged in terrorism were destroyed.  If you have a hornet's nest on your home, you destroy it.

To say 400 villages were destroyed is incorrect.  Some arabs stayed and have done quite well for themselves as Israelis.

More correct would be depopulated as refuges chose to leave.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Divine.Wind said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> *America Have Engagement but NEVER VICTORY*.....as in Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria....You talk big but fight like shit.and leave shit where ever you roam...and you often stoop well below your combatants Level......What Planet have you just Arrived from ?????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.   Tell that to all the dead terrorist leaders.    American tech has reduced the terrorist leadership structure down to the Arab equivalent of Moe, Larry and Curly.  The Islamic Jihad has been reduced to mentally ill Muslims running over innocent women and children with trucks.   Aside from US drones blowing up the occasion terrorist leader, the main "meeting of the minds" will be when the Euros finally get fed up with Jihadists and go to the ME to clean house.
> 
> View attachment 126084
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America has been fighting it's "war on terror" for 15+ years now, and they're still all still there fighting back, regardless of how many drones kill their leaders. Sadly the U.S. has no strategy, no plan and no end game, just endless war enriching the weapons makers...maybe that was the plan all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disagreed.  As previously posted, it should get a lot more interesting when the Euros take a much more active role in killing off these scumbags.
Click to expand...

*Spitting on Charles Martel's Grave*

If they had any backbone, the French should have nuked that ISIS city in Libya after the massacre in Nice.  The way to win wars is to adopt the policy that if anyone surrenders to the enemy, he becomes the enemy.


----------



## aris2chat

>>Philistia (Hebrew: פלשת‎‎, Pleshet) is a term used to refer to the land of the Five Lords of the Philistines<<

They no longer existed as a separate people by the time of the Roman occupation.


----------



## aris2chat

aris2chat said:


> louie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, even *aris2chat* admits there were in fact people there. Let's see if the rest of you can get on board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People in the handful of sanjuks that later made up the mandate......not palestinians
> 
> Saying palestine was like saying africa or europe
> 
> The name is a roman insult to the population at the time.  At one time beside the other regions, there were three philistia that consisted of mostly gaza and sinai
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were there.  Assorted other groups were there, religious and racial.
> Ottoman, British and Arabs welcomed a Jewish homeland............
> the mufti and others called the death of jews
> Arabs had Jordan, more than 4 times the size of Israel.
> the arabs that later called themselves palestinians in the west bank were offered citizenship and responded with an attempted coup.
> 
> The dispute is not about palestinian having land, it is about their desire to destroy Israel.
> 
> Israel arabs are a vital part of the population in Israel.  Arabs that want to be Israelis, not fight them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Ottomans welcomed a Jewish homeland, why did the pass laws preventing Jews from settling in Palestine? It is amazing what brainwashing can do.
> 
> "The Council of Ministers considered the question and *in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, **excluding Palestine.* They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects
> 
> With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882:
> 
> The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine*. They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire."
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can read your Koran to find an answer to the question posed in the first sentence.
> 
> It's amazing what Islamic fascism can do.
Click to expand...



quran calls it Israel, land of Israelites or holy land

>>We [Allah] made a covenant with you [Children of Israel]<<


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.



Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.


----------



## aris2chat

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
Click to expand...


does not make one a native citizen of the land or give them historical ties.

Jews have a history, culture, language and religion that began there and that they carried through their diaspora to the present.  Romans, greeks, arabs, even the ottoman and british/LoN agree the jews came from the homeland of Israel.  The land has never been without jews, though some towns and areas jews were forced out of or forbidden for a time.  The prayers of the jews has through history been to never forget and to return to Jerusalem.

Where are the arab prayer.  Al-Aqsa was a dream place that came to Mohammed, not an actual place till a mosque was built on the edge of the Temple mount, not on what was the actual temple.  The rock or mount has been place of pilgrimage of christians and jews since the temple was destroyed.  A church existed on the mount before the muslim conquest.

Others came to the rock which was there for others but muslims prayed at the mosque on the edge of the mount, out of the way, originally.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some 400 towns and villages lost the majority of their arab population as "palestinian refuges" ran, because of arab calls by radio and news, so arab tanks  could destroy the jews.
> 
> Some were renamed.  They were not all destroyed.  New infrastructure, homes and businesses had to be built.
> 
> Not all the land was "owned" by palestinian refugees.  Many were tenant farmers, share croppers, and seasonal workers for land lords.  A lot of land was sold at several times its value to jews.
> 
> Those homes and villages that engaged in terrorism were destroyed.  If you have a hornet's nest on your home, you destroy it.
> 
> To say 400 villages were destroyed is incorrect.  Some arabs stayed and have done quite well for themselves as Israelis.
> 
> More correct would be depopulated as refuges chose to leave.
Click to expand...


So much Zionist propaganda in one post.  Amazing.

1.
*Israeli group puts 1948 Palestine back on the map*

"400-500 Arab villages and towns were depopulated and destroyed or occupied and renamed. Most of them were left in ruins..."

Remembering the Nakba: Israeli group puts 1948 Palestine back on the map

2.
"....a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. *As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.*.."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined

3. The Christians and Muslims owned 95% of the land in 1945.


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> does not make one a native citizen of the land or give them historical ties.
> 
> Jews have a history, culture, language and religion that began there and that they carried through their diaspora to the present.  Romans, greeks, arabs, even the ottoman and british/LoN agree the jews came from the homeland of Israel.  The land has never been without jews, though some towns and areas jews were forced out of or forbidden for a time.  The prayers of the jews has through history been to never forget and to return to Jerusalem.
> 
> Where are the arab prayer.  Al-Aqsa was a dream place that came to Mohammed, not an actual place till a mosque was built on the edge of the Temple mount, not on what was the actual temple.  The rock or mount has been place of pilgrimage of christians and jews since the temple was destroyed.  A church existed on the mount before the muslim conquest.
> 
> Others came to the rock which was there for others but muslims prayed at the mosque on the edge of the mount, out of the way, originally.
Click to expand...


Yeah right.  The Jews history and culture is European.  There is no lox or gifilte in the Middle East you brainwashed nutcase.  By the way, Aramaic, not Hebrew was the language of the area since 8 BC.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> does not make one a native citizen of the land or give them historical ties.
> 
> Jews have a history, culture, language and religion that began there and that they carried through their diaspora to the present.  Romans, greeks, arabs, even the ottoman and british/LoN agree the jews came from the homeland of Israel.  The land has never been without jews, though some towns and areas jews were forced out of or forbidden for a time.  The prayers of the jews has through history been to never forget and to return to Jerusalem.
> 
> Where are the arab prayer.  Al-Aqsa was a dream place that came to Mohammed, not an actual place till a mosque was built on the edge of the Temple mount, not on what was the actual temple.  The rock or mount has been place of pilgrimage of christians and jews since the temple was destroyed.  A church existed on the mount before the muslim conquest.
> 
> Others came to the rock which was there for others but muslims prayed at the mosque on the edge of the mount, out of the way, originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  The Jews history and culture is European.  There is no lox or gifilte in the Middle East you brainwashed nutcase.  By the way, Aramaic, not Hebrew was the language of the area since 8 BC.
Click to expand...


There's no Matza in the ME either, except in Jewish communities. So?
Hebrew is a Canaanite language, Arameic is part of Hebrew.

Arabic on the other hand is the native language of Arabian peninsula.
Do we have another nations that speak Canaanite native languages?


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> does not make one a native citizen of the land or give them historical ties.
> 
> Jews have a history, culture, language and religion that began there and that they carried through their diaspora to the present.  Romans, greeks, arabs, even the ottoman and british/LoN agree the jews came from the homeland of Israel.  The land has never been without jews, though some towns and areas jews were forced out of or forbidden for a time.  The prayers of the jews has through history been to never forget and to return to Jerusalem.
> 
> Where are the arab prayer.  Al-Aqsa was a dream place that came to Mohammed, not an actual place till a mosque was built on the edge of the Temple mount, not on what was the actual temple.  The rock or mount has been place of pilgrimage of christians and jews since the temple was destroyed.  A church existed on the mount before the muslim conquest.
> 
> Others came to the rock which was there for others but muslims prayed at the mosque on the edge of the mount, out of the way, originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  The Jews history and culture is European.  There is no lox or gifilte in the Middle East you brainwashed nutcase.  By the way, Aramaic, not Hebrew was the language of the area since 8 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no Matza in the ME either, except in Jewish communities. So?
> Hebrew is a Canaanite language, Arameic is part of Hebrew.
> 
> Arabic on the other hand is the native language of Arabian peninsula.
> Do we have another nations that speak Canaanite native languages?
Click to expand...


Aramaic is not "part of Hebrew". Aramaic is a Syrian dialect.  LOL

Arabic is the closest to the proto-semitic languages like Canaanite.  Nice try, but as usual, your dog won't hunt.  But keep trying. LOL

"It is the best-preserved model of the Semitic languages. Its syntax and morphology"

Arabic literature


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.


That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
Click to expand...

Not really true. Resolution 194 defines Palestinian refugees. UNWRA is an aid agency. Their definition is only for those who qualify for aid.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
Click to expand...




Roudy said:


> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel


More Israeli lies. Half of those refugees were created before any Arab army entered Palestine.

BTW, no Arab army entered Israel.


----------



## montelatici

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
Click to expand...


What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.

It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.


----------



## aris2chat

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> does not make one a native citizen of the land or give them historical ties.
> 
> Jews have a history, culture, language and religion that began there and that they carried through their diaspora to the present.  Romans, greeks, arabs, even the ottoman and british/LoN agree the jews came from the homeland of Israel.  The land has never been without jews, though some towns and areas jews were forced out of or forbidden for a time.  The prayers of the jews has through history been to never forget and to return to Jerusalem.
> 
> Where are the arab prayer.  Al-Aqsa was a dream place that came to Mohammed, not an actual place till a mosque was built on the edge of the Temple mount, not on what was the actual temple.  The rock or mount has been place of pilgrimage of christians and jews since the temple was destroyed.  A church existed on the mount before the muslim conquest.
> 
> Others came to the rock which was there for others but muslims prayed at the mosque on the edge of the mount, out of the way, originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  The Jews history and culture is European.  There is no lox or gifilte in the Middle East you brainwashed nutcase.  By the way, Aramaic, not Hebrew was the language of the area since 8 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no Matza in the ME either, except in Jewish communities. So?
> Hebrew is a Canaanite language, Arameic is part of Hebrew.
> 
> Arabic on the other hand is the native language of Arabian peninsula.
> Do we have another nations that speak Canaanite native languages?
Click to expand...


Naan, lavash, khubz markouk without the yeast. Khubz Taawah is another version without yeast, probably one of the oldest and most basis of breads.  Gluten free, you can use buckwheat, potato flour or rice flour.
Matzo is just flour and cold water, mixed for no more than 8 minutes, quickly rolled flat and baked, or fried

I love the paper thin Markouk.


----------



## aris2chat

http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Segula21matza.pdf


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> does not make one a native citizen of the land or give them historical ties.
> 
> Jews have a history, culture, language and religion that began there and that they carried through their diaspora to the present.  Romans, greeks, arabs, even the ottoman and british/LoN agree the jews came from the homeland of Israel.  The land has never been without jews, though some towns and areas jews were forced out of or forbidden for a time.  The prayers of the jews has through history been to never forget and to return to Jerusalem.
> 
> Where are the arab prayer.  Al-Aqsa was a dream place that came to Mohammed, not an actual place till a mosque was built on the edge of the Temple mount, not on what was the actual temple.  The rock or mount has been place of pilgrimage of christians and jews since the temple was destroyed.  A church existed on the mount before the muslim conquest.
> 
> Others came to the rock which was there for others but muslims prayed at the mosque on the edge of the mount, out of the way, originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  The Jews history and culture is European.  There is no lox or gifilte in the Middle East you brainwashed nutcase.  By the way, Aramaic, not Hebrew was the language of the area since 8 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no Matza in the ME either, except in Jewish communities. So?
> Hebrew is a Canaanite language, Arameic is part of Hebrew.
> 
> Arabic on the other hand is the native language of Arabian peninsula.
> Do we have another nations that speak Canaanite native languages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naan, lavash, khubz markouk without the yeast. Khubz Taawah is another version without yeast, probably one of the oldest and most basis of breads.  Gluten free, you can use buckwheat, potato flour or rice flour.
> Matzo is just flour and cold water, mixed for no more than 8 minutes, quickly rolled flat and baked, or fried
> 
> I love the paper thin Markouk.
Click to expand...


Yup, and all those salmon to catch in the Jordan river to make lox. You are hilarious.  The Zionists were European, ethnically and culturally.


----------



## aris2chat

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".

- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -


"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".

- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 -


"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".

- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 -

Concerning the Holy Land, the chairman of the Syrian Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919 stated:

"The only Arab domination since the Conquest in 635 c.e. hardly lasted, as such, 22 years".

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -


"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".

- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat -


"There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent, mournful expanse... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes... desolate and unlovely...".

- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad", 1867 -

Where had the Palestinians been hidden that Mark Twain did not see them? Where was that "ancient" people in the mid XIX century c.e.? Of course, modern biased Arab politicians try to discredit Mark Twain and insult and blame him of racism. Yet, it seems that there were other people that did not achieve in recognizing a single Palestinian in those times and earlier:

"In 1590 a 'simple English visitor' to Jerusalem wrote: 'Nothing there is to bescene but a little of the old walls, which is yet remayning and all the rest is grasse, mosse and weedes much like to a piece of rank or moist grounde'.".

- Gunner Edward Webbe, Palestine Exploration Fund, 
Quarterly Statement, p. 86; de Haas, History, p. 338 -


"The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil".

- British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s -


"Palestine is a ruined and desolate land".

- Count Constantine François Volney, XVIII century French author and historian -


"The Arabs themselves cannot be considered but temporary residents. They pitched their tents in its grazing fields or built their places of refuge in its ruined cities. They created nothing in it. Since they were strangers to the land, they never became its masters. The desert wind that brought them hither could one day carry them away without their leaving behind them any sign of their passage through it".

- Comments by Christians concerning the Arabs in Palestine in the 1800s -

"Then we entered the hill district, and our path lay through the clattering bed of an ancient stream, whose brawling waters have rolled away into the past, along with the fierce and turbulent race who once inhabited these savage hills. There may have been cultivation here two thousand years ago. The mountains, or huge stony mounds environing this rough path, have level ridges all the way up to their summits; on these parallel ledges there is still some verdure and soil: when water flowed here, and the country was thronged with that extraordinary population, which, according to the Sacred Histories, was crowded into the region, these mountain steps may have been gardens and vineyards, such as we see now thriving along the hills of the Rhine. Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride".

- William Thackeray in "From Jaffa To Jerusalem", 1844 -


"The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population".

- James Finn, British Consul in 1857 -


"There are many proofs, such as ancient ruins, broken aqueducts, and remains of old roads, which show that it has not always been so desolate as it seems now. In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life. There are some rude mills here which are turned by the stream. A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins of the ancient city of Cæsarea, once a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, and the Roman capital of Palestine, but now entirely deserted. As the sun was setting we gazed upon the desolate harbor, once filled with ships, and looked over the sea in vain for a single sail. In this once crowded mart, filled with the din of traffic, there was the silence of the desert. After our dinner we gathered in our tent as usual to talk over the incidents of the day, or the history of the locality. Yet it was sad, as I laid upon my couch at night, to listen to the moaning of the waves and to think of the desolation around us".

- B. W. Johnson, in "Young Folks in Bible Lands": Chapter IV, 1892 -


"The area was underpopulated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880's, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained "The Holy Land" in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants - both Jewish and Arab. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts... Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen... The plows used were of wood... The yields were very poor... The sanitary conditions in the village [Yabna] were horrible... Schools did not exist... The rate of infant mortality was very high... The western part, toward the sea, was almost a desert... The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants".

- The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913 -

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

>>The Arabic name for Jerusalem is _"Al-*Q*u*DS*"_ (The Holy), which is abbreviation for another Arabic name used for Jerusalem until the last century, _"Bayt al-Ma*QD*e*S*"_ (The Holy House), since the 10th century c.e. The name _"*Bayt* al-*M*a*QD*e*S*"_ is a translation of the Hebrew _"*Beyt* ha-*M*i*KD*a*SH*"_, which means "House of Holiness", "Temple". But Islam has no Temple, only the Jews did. <<


----------



## aris2chat

December 1947, he said, “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments.” He concluded, “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these early Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations” (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 590.)

The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: “Any opposition to this order... is an obstacle to the holy war... and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.” The Arab Higher Committee also ordered the evacuation of “several dozen villages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more” in April-July 1948. “The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way” (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986; See also Morris, pp. 263 & 590-592).

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return” (The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, Beirut, 1973, Part 1, pp. 386-387).

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, who declared: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down” (Myron Kaufman, The Coming Destruction of Israel, NY: The American Library Inc., 1970, pp. 26-27).

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country” (Edward Atiyah, The Arabs, London: Penguin Books, 1955, p. 183).

“The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two,” Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub (August 16, 1948). “Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the ’Zionist gangs’ very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”

On April 3, 1949, the Near East Broadcasting Station ( Cyprus ) said: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem” (Samuel Katz, Battleground-Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, NY: Bantam Books, 1985, p. 15).

“The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies,” according to the Jordanian newspaper Filastin, (February 19, 1949).

One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said: “The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”

“The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade,” said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). “He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”

“The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”

— Palestinian Authority (then) Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) (Falastin a-Thaura, (March 1976)


Arabs Urged to Flee from Palestine in 1948:


"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." 
-- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." 
-- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz).


"The Arabs of Haifa fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
-- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

Sir John Troutbeck, British Middle East Office in Cairo, noted in cables to superiors (1948-49) that the refugees (in Gaza) have no bitterness against Jews, but harbor intense hatred toward Egyptians: "They say 'we know who our enemies are (referring to the Egyptians)', declaring that their Arab brethren persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over."

"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees." 
-- The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949.


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
Click to expand...

Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,


----------



## montelatici

aris2chat said:


> December 1947, he said, “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments.” He concluded, “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these early Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations” (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 590.)
> 
> The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: “Any opposition to this order... is an obstacle to the holy war... and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.” The Arab Higher Committee also ordered the evacuation of “several dozen villages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more” in April-July 1948. “The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way” (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986; See also Morris, pp. 263 & 590-592).
> 
> In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
> 
> “Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return” (The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, Beirut, 1973, Part 1, pp. 386-387).
> 
> Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, who declared: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down” (Myron Kaufman, The Coming Destruction of Israel, NY: The American Library Inc., 1970, pp. 26-27).
> 
> The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country” (Edward Atiyah, The Arabs, London: Penguin Books, 1955, p. 183).
> 
> “The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two,” Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub (August 16, 1948). “Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the ’Zionist gangs’ very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”
> 
> On April 3, 1949, the Near East Broadcasting Station ( Cyprus ) said: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem” (Samuel Katz, Battleground-Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, NY: Bantam Books, 1985, p. 15).
> 
> “The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies,” according to the Jordanian newspaper Filastin, (February 19, 1949).
> 
> One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said: “The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”
> 
> “The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade,” said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). “He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”
> 
> “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”
> 
> — Palestinian Authority (then) Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) (Falastin a-Thaura, (March 1976)
> 
> 
> Arabs Urged to Flee from Palestine in 1948:
> 
> 
> "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
> -- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949
> 
> "Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe."
> -- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz).
> 
> 
> "The Arabs of Haifa fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
> -- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949
> 
> Sir John Troutbeck, British Middle East Office in Cairo, noted in cables to superiors (1948-49) that the refugees (in Gaza) have no bitterness against Jews, but harbor intense hatred toward Egyptians: "They say 'we know who our enemies are (referring to the Egyptians)', declaring that their Arab brethren persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over."
> 
> "The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."
> -- The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949.



Well, don't let facts get in the way.  You are posting nonsense from Hasbara sites.  No one believes that crap anymore now that source documentation is available. Of course you don't provide links as all the crap you post is Hasbara.


----------



## montelatici

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
Click to expand...


Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha. History according to an Islamonazi internet jihadi.

Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian

*The Arab-Israeli War of 1948*
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> does not make one a native citizen of the land or give them historical ties.
> 
> Jews have a history, culture, language and religion that began there and that they carried through their diaspora to the present.  Romans, greeks, arabs, even the ottoman and british/LoN agree the jews came from the homeland of Israel.  The land has never been without jews, though some towns and areas jews were forced out of or forbidden for a time.  The prayers of the jews has through history been to never forget and to return to Jerusalem.
> 
> Where are the arab prayer.  Al-Aqsa was a dream place that came to Mohammed, not an actual place till a mosque was built on the edge of the Temple mount, not on what was the actual temple.  The rock or mount has been place of pilgrimage of christians and jews since the temple was destroyed.  A church existed on the mount before the muslim conquest.
> 
> Others came to the rock which was there for others but muslims prayed at the mosque on the edge of the mount, out of the way, originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  The Jews history and culture is European.  There is no lox or gifilte in the Middle East you brainwashed nutcase.  By the way, Aramaic, not Hebrew was the language of the area since 8 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no Matza in the ME either, except in Jewish communities. So?
> Hebrew is a Canaanite language, Arameic is part of Hebrew.
> 
> Arabic on the other hand is the native language of Arabian peninsula.
> Do we have another nations that speak Canaanite native languages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aramaic is not "part of Hebrew". Aramaic is a Syrian dialect.  LOL
> 
> Arabic is the closest to the proto-semitic languages like Canaanite.  Nice try, but as usual, your dog won't hunt.  But keep trying. LOL
> 
> "It is the best-preserved model of the Semitic languages. Its syntax and morphology"
> 
> Arabic literature
Click to expand...



The ancient *Aramaic alphabet* is adapted from the Phoenician alphabet and became distinctive from it by the 8th century BCE. It was used to write the Aramaic language and had displaced the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet for the writing of Hebrew. The letters all represent consonants, some of which are also used as _matres lectionis_ to indicate long vowels....

Among the scripts in modern use, the Hebrew alphabet bears the closest relation to the Imperial Aramaic script of the 5th century BC, with an identical letter inventory and, for the most part, nearly identical letter shapes.

Look at Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic and see which have the closest relation.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
Click to expand...


Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.

(h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?


Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.


----------



## Roudy

I think a record has been established.  He just made a fool of himself four times in a row.


----------



## aris2chat

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> does not make one a native citizen of the land or give them historical ties.
> 
> Jews have a history, culture, language and religion that began there and that they carried through their diaspora to the present.  Romans, greeks, arabs, even the ottoman and british/LoN agree the jews came from the homeland of Israel.  The land has never been without jews, though some towns and areas jews were forced out of or forbidden for a time.  The prayers of the jews has through history been to never forget and to return to Jerusalem.
> 
> Where are the arab prayer.  Al-Aqsa was a dream place that came to Mohammed, not an actual place till a mosque was built on the edge of the Temple mount, not on what was the actual temple.  The rock or mount has been place of pilgrimage of christians and jews since the temple was destroyed.  A church existed on the mount before the muslim conquest.
> 
> Others came to the rock which was there for others but muslims prayed at the mosque on the edge of the mount, out of the way, originally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right.  The Jews history and culture is European.  There is no lox or gifilte in the Middle East you brainwashed nutcase.  By the way, Aramaic, not Hebrew was the language of the area since 8 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no Matza in the ME either, except in Jewish communities. So?
> Hebrew is a Canaanite language, Arameic is part of Hebrew.
> 
> Arabic on the other hand is the native language of Arabian peninsula.
> Do we have another nations that speak Canaanite native languages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aramaic is not "part of Hebrew". Aramaic is a Syrian dialect.  LOL
> 
> Arabic is the closest to the proto-semitic languages like Canaanite.  Nice try, but as usual, your dog won't hunt.  But keep trying. LOL
> 
> "It is the best-preserved model of the Semitic languages. Its syntax and morphology"
> 
> Arabic literature
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The ancient *Aramaic alphabet* is adapted from the Phoenician alphabet and became distinctive from it by the 8th century BCE. It was used to write the Aramaic language and had displaced the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet for the writing of Hebrew. The letters all represent consonants, some of which are also used as _matres lectionis_ to indicate long vowels....
> 
> Among the scripts in modern use, the Hebrew alphabet bears the closest relation to the Imperial Aramaic script of the 5th century BC, with an identical letter inventory and, for the most part, nearly identical letter shapes.
> 
> Look at Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic and see which have the closest relation.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ha. History according to an Islamonazi internet jihadi.
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> *The Arab-Israeli War of 1948*
> The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents.
Click to expand...

So, where does it mention Israel being attacked?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.


This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
Click to expand...



Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
Click to expand...


Your silly one-liners won't refute the historical account.

https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST351-10.4.3-1948-Arab-Israeli-War.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
Click to expand...

Grain of salt.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grain of salt.
Click to expand...


Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
Click to expand...

Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
Click to expand...


So convenient, the famous "it's all Israel's fault'.
I guess everyone should ask You as the defining authority.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So convenient, the famous "it's all Israel's fault'.
> I guess everyone should ask You as the defining authority.
Click to expand...

No, you just have to look deeper into history than the "overview" you get from most sources.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> 
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So convenient, the famous "it's all Israel's fault'.
> I guess everyone should ask You as the defining authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just have to look deeper into history than the "overview" you get from most sources.
Click to expand...


We do, it's just that pro-Palestinians usually prefer to frame 'history' in just the last 100 years. And accept only sources that support their agenda for Arab Muslim colonialism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So convenient, the famous "it's all Israel's fault'.
> I guess everyone should ask You as the defining authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just have to look deeper into history than the "overview" you get from most sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do, it's just that pro-Palestinians usually prefer to frame 'history' in just the last 100 years. And accept only sources that support their agenda for Arab Muslim colonialism.
Click to expand...

There are some misleading things about the creation of Israel. One of the things that is always mentioned is resolution 181. Israel briefly mentions it in its Declaration of independence. It is regularly said that Israel acquired more land than that allotted to it in the resolution among other things.

The problem with all of this smoke about resolution 181 is that it did not happen. Resolution 181 *recommended* that the Security Council partition Palestine giving a list of things to be implemented. The Security Council did not Implement Resolution 181. It just didn't happen.

Another thing you will see regularly is a term like formerly mandated territory. This implies that the territory was not Palestine but was the territory of the mandate. This is not true. The mandate had no land. It worked inside Palestine.
---------------
Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
Mandates were not states. They were temporarily assigned administrations.

There is more than that when you look at the actual history.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> 
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So convenient, the famous "it's all Israel's fault'.
> I guess everyone should ask You as the defining authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just have to look deeper into history than the "overview" you get from most sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do, it's just that pro-Palestinians usually prefer to frame 'history' in just the last 100 years. And accept only sources that support their agenda for Arab Muslim colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some misleading things about the creation of Israel. One of the things that is always mentioned is resolution 181. Israel briefly mentions it in its Declaration of independence. It is regularly said that Israel acquired more land than that allotted to it in the resolution among other things.
> 
> The problem with all of this smoke about resolution 181 is that it did not happen. Resolution 181 *recommended* that the Security Council partition Palestine giving a list of things to be implemented. The Security Council did not Implement Resolution 181. It just didn't happen.
> 
> Another thing you will see regularly is a term like formerly mandated territory. This implies that the territory was not Palestine but was the territory of the mandate. This is not true. The mandate had no land. It worked inside Palestine.
> ---------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> Mandates were not states. They were temporarily assigned administrations.
> 
> There is more than that when you look at the actual history.
Click to expand...

You see once we pass the 100 year barrier, things begin to look messy for the Arabs, it's a matter of context.

The massacres in Hebron, Sefad, Tiberias, Jerusalem...

Battle of Hebron - Wikipedia
1834 looting of Safed - Wikipedia
1838 Druze attack on Safed - Wikipedia

All this legalese...laws can be interpreted in many ways.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So convenient, the famous "it's all Israel's fault'.
> I guess everyone should ask You as the defining authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just have to look deeper into history than the "overview" you get from most sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do, it's just that pro-Palestinians usually prefer to frame 'history' in just the last 100 years. And accept only sources that support their agenda for Arab Muslim colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some misleading things about the creation of Israel. One of the things that is always mentioned is resolution 181. Israel briefly mentions it in its Declaration of independence. It is regularly said that Israel acquired more land than that allotted to it in the resolution among other things.
> 
> The problem with all of this smoke about resolution 181 is that it did not happen. Resolution 181 *recommended* that the Security Council partition Palestine giving a list of things to be implemented. The Security Council did not Implement Resolution 181. It just didn't happen.
> 
> Another thing you will see regularly is a term like formerly mandated territory. This implies that the territory was not Palestine but was the territory of the mandate. This is not true. The mandate had no land. It worked inside Palestine.
> ---------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> Mandates were not states. They were temporarily assigned administrations.
> 
> There is more than that when you look at the actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see once we pass the 100 year barrier, things begin to look messy for the Arabs, it's a matter of context.
> 
> The massacres in Hebron, Sefad, Tiberias, Jerusalem...
> 
> Battle of Hebron - Wikipedia
> 1834 looting of Safed - Wikipedia
> 1838 Druze attack on Safed - Wikipedia
> 
> All this legalese...laws can be interpreted in many ways.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how this relates to my post.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So convenient, the famous "it's all Israel's fault'.
> I guess everyone should ask You as the defining authority.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just have to look deeper into history than the "overview" you get from most sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do, it's just that pro-Palestinians usually prefer to frame 'history' in just the last 100 years. And accept only sources that support their agenda for Arab Muslim colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some misleading things about the creation of Israel. One of the things that is always mentioned is resolution 181. Israel briefly mentions it in its Declaration of independence. It is regularly said that Israel acquired more land than that allotted to it in the resolution among other things.
> 
> The problem with all of this smoke about resolution 181 is that it did not happen. Resolution 181 *recommended* that the Security Council partition Palestine giving a list of things to be implemented. The Security Council did not Implement Resolution 181. It just didn't happen.
> 
> Another thing you will see regularly is a term like formerly mandated territory. This implies that the territory was not Palestine but was the territory of the mandate. This is not true. The mandate had no land. It worked inside Palestine.
> ---------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> Mandates were not states. They were temporarily assigned administrations.
> 
> There is more than that when you look at the actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see once we pass the 100 year barrier, things begin to look messy for the Arabs, it's a matter of context.
> 
> The massacres in Hebron, Sefad, Tiberias, Jerusalem...
> 
> Battle of Hebron - Wikipedia
> 1834 looting of Safed - Wikipedia
> 1838 Druze attack on Safed - Wikipedia
> 
> All this legalese...laws can be interpreted in many ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fail to see how this relates to my post.
Click to expand...


Your post was the usual Arab colonialist talking points.

If You step outside Your comfort zone and actually look a the lives of the minorities under Arab Muslim rule, might actually GET IT, not just the Arab point of view, but the point of view of the indigenous minorities who deserve self determination in their land, free from Your European hypocrisy.

History goes far beyond the 100 years. Be honest.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just have to look deeper into history than the "overview" you get from most sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do, it's just that pro-Palestinians usually prefer to frame 'history' in just the last 100 years. And accept only sources that support their agenda for Arab Muslim colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some misleading things about the creation of Israel. One of the things that is always mentioned is resolution 181. Israel briefly mentions it in its Declaration of independence. It is regularly said that Israel acquired more land than that allotted to it in the resolution among other things.
> 
> The problem with all of this smoke about resolution 181 is that it did not happen. Resolution 181 *recommended* that the Security Council partition Palestine giving a list of things to be implemented. The Security Council did not Implement Resolution 181. It just didn't happen.
> 
> Another thing you will see regularly is a term like formerly mandated territory. This implies that the territory was not Palestine but was the territory of the mandate. This is not true. The mandate had no land. It worked inside Palestine.
> ---------------
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, *nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”*​
> Mandates were not states. They were temporarily assigned administrations.
> 
> There is more than that when you look at the actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see once we pass the 100 year barrier, things begin to look messy for the Arabs, it's a matter of context.
> 
> The massacres in Hebron, Sefad, Tiberias, Jerusalem...
> 
> Battle of Hebron - Wikipedia
> 1834 looting of Safed - Wikipedia
> 1838 Druze attack on Safed - Wikipedia
> 
> All this legalese...laws can be interpreted in many ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fail to see how this relates to my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post was the usual Arab colonialist talking points.
> 
> If You step outside Your comfort zone and actually look a the lives of the minorities under Arab Muslim rule, might actually GET IT, not just the Arab point of view, but the point of view of the indigenous minorities who deserve self determination in their land, free from Your European hypocrisy.
> 
> History goes far beyond the 100 years. Be honest.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that my post is not true?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
Click to expand...


Just your assumption.


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when five Arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel to "drive the Jews into the sea" and fail epically.  And then two of those nations Egypt and Jordan, occupy the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years, without a peep from anybody about this mythical "Palestine".  Funny eh?  Even the neighboring Arabs didn't believe in a Falastinen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is your propaganda.  The Arab League intervened (and entered only the non-Jew and international partitions) to try to defend the non-Jews from Jewish ethnic cleansing and killing of non-Jews, Christians included.  As usual you just parrot propaganda. Haifa (within the Arab partition), for example, was laid to siege and surrendered to the Jews long before the Arab League intervened or Israel declared independence.
> 
> It was a Jewish invasion, not the other way around. Mr. Propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzz wrong, once the state of Israel was formed, it was the Arab savages that attacked Israel in order to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed.  Of course the savages did attack the Jews many times before, In 1929, and even in the 1600's and before,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was never attacked you idiot.  The Arab League only entered the no-Jew and international zones to protect the non-Jews from the Jewish animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ha. History according to an Islamonazi internet jihadi.
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> *The Arab-Israeli War of 1948*
> The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where does it mention Israel being attacked?
Click to expand...

Why do Pali-Nazi supporters pretend to be blind, deaf, and dumb? 

Maybe you should ask a friend or relative assist you with your reading comprehension problems. 

The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was attacked you idiot. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself with your clown dancing?
> 
> S/766 of 22 May 1948
> 
> What follows is one of several questions posed on behalf of the UN and the Israeli response.
> 
> (h) Have Arab forces penetrated into the territory over which you claim to have authority?
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias. In addition, planes of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have repeatedly raided Tel Aviv and southern Jewish settlements, while Iraqi air-force planes have been raiding settlements in the Northern Jordan Valley and artillery of the Syrian and Lebanese armies have been shelling settlements in Upper Galilee from across the frontier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to Question (h): Arab forces have penetrated into the territory of the State of Israel in certain corners of the Northern Negev and in the Jordan Valley south of Lake Tiberias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
Click to expand...

So you're replacing actual historical facts for fake PaliNazi propaganda.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a statement by an Israeli spokesman. It is not an historic account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're replacing actual historical facts for fake PaliNazi propaganda.
Click to expand...

You failed to mention which of my facts are incorrect.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> 
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're replacing actual historical facts for fake PaliNazi propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You failed to mention which of my facts are incorrect.
Click to expand...


I believe you failed to offer any facts.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that over 500 villages were destroyed and 750,000 refugees were created from a land without people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a 'Palestinian refugee'?
> Someone who's resided only 2 years prior to 1948.
Click to expand...

*Refusing to Fight for What Was Never Theirs*

Letting the true Arab nations invade and fight in their place, the fake-nationality Paleonasties ran away.  That desertion forfeited any claims to the land.


----------



## teddyearp

Hollie said:


> Your silly one-liners won't refute the historical account.
> 
> https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST351-10.4.3-1948-Arab-Israeli-War.pdf





P F Tinmore said:


> Grain of salt.





P F Tinmore said:


> I fail to see how this relates to my post.



One liner's is usually all Tinmore has . . . . .


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> 
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're replacing actual historical facts for fake PaliNazi propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You failed to mention which of my facts are incorrect.
Click to expand...

You failed to read again, five Arab nations invaded Israel the day it announced statehood.


----------



## Roudy

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're replacing actual historical facts for fake PaliNazi propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You failed to mention which of my facts are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you failed to offer any facts.
Click to expand...

Indeed he did


----------



## Roudy

teddyearp said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly one-liners won't refute the historical account.
> 
> https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST351-10.4.3-1948-Arab-Israeli-War.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how this relates to my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One liner's is usually all Tinmore has . . . . .
Click to expand...

Indeed he does.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> 
> 
> Grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your usual tactic - post pointless irrelevancies when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many historic accounts have Israeli "say so" history. These are things that are repeatedly said over time that everyone just "understands" to be true and do not look to see that they are, in fact, true. They just run with those assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're replacing actual historical facts for fake PaliNazi propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You failed to mention which of my facts are incorrect.
Click to expand...

It is at this point that Tinmore attempts to lure you down his very twisted rabbit hole to his very twisted 'truth'.

I've been there years ago, trust me.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Martin Kramer deserves our thanks: in “The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration,” he has illuminated the important role played by Nahum Sokolow in the diplomacy that led to the 1917 endorsement by the wartime allies and associated powers of the idea of a Jewish national home in Palestine under British protection. He has thereby enlarged our understanding, not only of how the Balfour Declaration came about but also of how it became part of international law.

(full article online)

How the Balfour Declaration Became Part of International Law


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Martin Kramer deserves our thanks: in “The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration,” he has illuminated the important role played by Nahum Sokolow in the diplomacy that led to the 1917 endorsement by the wartime allies and associated powers of the idea of a Jewish national home in Palestine under British protection. He has thereby enlarged our understanding, not only of how the Balfour Declaration came about but also of how it became part of international law.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> How the Balfour Declaration Became Part of International Law


This person makes some leaps to come to the conclusion that he does. Didn't you notice them when you read the article?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*David Ben-Gurion and Israel's Expulsion of the Palestinians - Rashid Khalidi *

**


----------



## Hollie




----------



## aris2chat

Hollie said:


>




Muslims are leaving Israel and all western countries, etc,?????????????

Ha Ha

Propaganda videos talk a lot of nonsense.  Do they think before speaking?


----------



## Linkiloo

aris2chat said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are leaving Israel and all western countries, etc,?????????????
> 
> Ha Ha
> 
> Propaganda videos talk a lot of nonsense.  Do they think before speaking?
Click to expand...

That's certainly not what is happening in Europe.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*On point!*


----------



## Hollie

*On Point. Pat Condell


*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> *On Point. Pat Condell
> 
> 
> *


This guy is a comedian, right?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *On Point. Pat Condell
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is a comedian, right?
Click to expand...

And much more successful than you. 

Don't quit your day job as a wannabe Ummah'istan, stay here and be the butt of our jokes.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Humanity

Hollie said:


> *On Point. Pat Condell
> 
> 
> *



An alternative comedian who engages in controversial debate...

A self serving troll in other words!


----------



## Indeependent

Humanity said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *On Point. Pat Condell
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An alternative comedian who engages in controversial debate...
> 
> A self serving troll in other words!
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that you can't process facts.


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


>



Misleading and Harmful: the "Palestinian Loss of Land" Maps

*MISLEADING AND HARMFUL: THE "PALESTINIAN LOSS OF LAND" MAPS*






These “maps” have been widely circulated by the BDS movement, and they are misleading and dishonest. They appear in the “Zionism Unsettled” study guide. They appear on the websites of the Israel Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) and the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship (PPF). They also appear in the supporting materials for the BDS overtures submitted to the 2014 and upcoming 2016 Presbyterian General Assemblies.

*The intent of the maps is clear: to falsely demonstrate an “ethnic cleansing” that did not occur, one perpetrated by the “colonizer” Jews upon “indigenous” Arabs (the incendiary words “colonizer”, “indigenous”, and “ethnic cleansing” are used repeatedly in BDS literature). *

In 1946, the area labeled “Palestine” was the _British Mandate of Palestine_. All who lived there were Palestinians, Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians. In the 1946 “map” these terms change. The Arab Palestinians are now simply “Palestinians.” The word “Palestinian” now means “Arab” and no longer refers to all of the people who live there, and the Jewish Palestinians are simply “Jews”. In 1946 Jews paid over 50% of property taxes in Palestine. Almost half of the land was public land, owned by no one and administered by the British. The premise that the land was almost all “Arab land” is misleading. It was shared land and belonged to no particular ethnic group.

Now let’s consider the 1967 map in terms of “ethnic cleansing”, keeping in mind that before 1948, both Jews and Arabs lived in _all of the areas_ of the British Mandate of Palestine, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. It is quite common to hear that the entire West Bank is “Arab Land” and always has been, but numerous Jewish communities existed in what is now the West Bank prior to 1948. These communities were attacked and wiped out by Arab mobs in 1920, 1929 and 1936 and during the war waged by Arab militias and Arab governments in 1947-48.  Here are some facts:

Until it was wiped out by Arab riots in 1929 in what is known as the Hebron Massacre, there was a large Jewish community in the center of Hebron

The Jewish population of Jerusalem (which has had a Jewish majority since at least the second half of the 19th century) was dispossessed by the Arab riots of 1929 and 1936 (when Jews fled most of what is now called the Muslim Quarter). In 1948, the Jordanian Legion expelled all of the Jews then living in what is now East Jerusalem and destroyed its holy places.

Sizeable tracts of land owned by Jews in the rural West Bank – including the Gush Etzion settlements, land between Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarm, and in Bethlehem and Hebron – were seized by the Jordanians in 1948.

The ‘Jewish settlements’ north of Jerusalem, Atarot and Neve Yaakov, were evacuated in 1948, under the declared threat of advancing Arab armies to massacre all the Jews in their path.

Today, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians live on land in and around Jerusalem that is still owned by the Jewish National Fund, including the Kalandia refugee camp and the Deheishe refugee camp south of Bethlehem.

Photo below: Jews being expelled from Old City by Jordanian forces 1948


----------



## montelatici

*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*

*PALESTINE,*

*during the period*
*1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*


*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*
*PALESTINE.*

*I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.*

"There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.*

Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)


----------



## Roudy

^^^^^
Irrelevant spam. 

You know you're getting desperate when you rely on an irrelevant document not designed for population statistics that quotes "only a handful" for a group of people. Ha ha ha!


----------



## montelatici

Roudy said:


> ^^^^^
> Irrelevant spam.
> 
> You know you're getting desperate when you rely on an irrelevant document not designed for population statistics that quotes "only a handful" for a group of people. Ha ha ha!



You mean the facts don't agree with your propaganda.


----------



## montelatici

http://content.ecf.org.il/files/M00785_1922PalestineCensusEnglish.pdf

72 years after 1850 the 1922 British census has 83,794 Jews in Palestine.  After 72 years of European Jew migration.  It seems that, in fact, before 1850 there were only a handful of Jews in Palestine, if any at all.


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> Irrelevant spam.
> 
> You know you're getting desperate when you rely on an irrelevant document not designed for population statistics that quotes "only a handful" for a group of people. Ha ha ha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the facts don't agree with your propaganda.
Click to expand...

I mean you're repetitively spamming an irrelvant document not intended for posting population statistics that has been proven totally wrong.


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> View attachment 145333
> 
> View attachment 145334
> 
> http://content.ecf.org.il/files/M00785_1922PalestineCensusEnglish.pdf
> 
> 72 years after 1850 the 1922 British census has 83,794 Jews in Palestine.  After 72 years of European Jew migration.  It seems that, in fact, before 1850 there were only a handful of Jews in Palestine, if any at all.



Another epic fail.  How many times must you embarrass yourself with this jihadi propaganda?

 Since the British had just taken over, they therefore had no way of calculating the numbers due to upheavals at mass migrations of illegal Arabs from neighboring Arab lands.  The British admitted to this themselves.  The best source for the actual numbers are from The Ottomans, who ruled the land for centuries and collected taxes.

http://badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/publications/Jerusalem1948-CHAP1.PDF

Jerusalem had become the largest city in Palestine and the political and cultural center of the country at the end of the Ottoman era, on the eve of World War I. Much scholarship on the subject reveals the difficulties in trying to establish definitive population estimates for this period. The Ottoman census figures of 1905 reveal a total of 32,400 Ottoman nationals in Jerusalem: 13,400 Jews, 11,000 Muslims, and 8,000 Christians.49 However, these numbers do not reflect those with foreign nationality living in the city which more than likely would raise the numbers ofJewsandChristians.

Jewish sources for this year contend a much higher number, including one estimating 50,000 Jews in a total population of 75,000. The Ottoman sources for 1914 for the entire Qada' of Jerusalem, give the number of Jewish citizens to be 18,190.

"In 1917, Colonel Zaki Bey, head of the Jerusalem Wheat Syndicate, reported to Jamal Pasha that Jerusalem had 31,147 Jews in an overall population of 53,410. These figures were based on birth certificates and police records; their accuracy is proven by the first compre- hensive census in Jerusalem, made by the British in 1922. This census showed a general population of 62,000, including 34,300 Jews."


----------



## montelatici

The British census of 1922 trumps all the propaganda you posted, without any links.  Remember, I post the link to the source documentation, you just make things up or post Hasbara propaganda.  There were less than a handful of Jews in Palestine before 1850, not a handful as the British contended.


----------



## Roudy

So you're saying the British who had barely taken over a collapsed empire that was in turmoil in 1922, had a better grip on the details of the number of schools, hospitals, homes, and tax payers by ethnicity and profession, than the Ottomans who ruled the land for centuries,  collecting taxes and keeping track of everything down to minute details? 

Ha ha ha. 

FAIL!


----------



## Roudy

Handful my ass! It's the details that always get you Internet jihadis:

http://badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/publications/Jerusalem1948-CHAP1.PDF

A publication on education in greater Syria from 1882 showed that there were a total of 3,854 students in school in Jerusalem (2,768 boys and 1,086 girls) and 235 teachers.28 The number of girls in Christian schools (Evangelical, Greek Orthodox, Latin, Greek Catholic, and Armenian) were slightly more than the number of boys (926 girls to 861 boys). While the majority of these students were Christians, four of the Evangelical schools (two for boys and two for girls) totaling 138 students exclusively taught Jews. In addition, there were 1,707 students in Jewish schools, 160 of which were girls. In the eight Muslim schools, all of which were for boys, there were 360 students. In 1891, the Government opened a general [secondary] school (Rushdiya) [sic] in our city, where all the children of the city, regardless of their religion, could attend classes in Arabic, Turkish, French, and the basic sciences. It was also recorded that a Muslim school for girls had been established.

Status of buildings in Jerusalem

In 1900,  total number of new homeowners amounts to 111. Of these, 56 are Jews, 27 Christians and 27 Muslims; and [one must also count] the municipality, which has put up a building with the revenue collected from all the citys residents.


----------



## montelatici

You just posted Hasbara propaganda, nothing Ottoman about it.  I have the Ottoman census data.  There were about 8,000 Jews in Palestine  according to the Ottoman census period 1844-1856. 3,993 women and 4,117 men. 

You are a joke posting Hasbara propaganda thinking it convinces anyone that hasn't been brainwashed.  Grow up.

By the way, what does your propaganda about Jews in 1900 have to do to the handful of Jews prior to 1850?


----------



## Roudy

Those are actual numbers according to Ottoman and Arab sources, that counter your failed Jihadi propaganda.

"Handful" ha ha ha ha ha. Ya gotta love it.

Look at the Bibliography of the paper.  All legit historians, researchers, and Ottoman and Arab sources.

Joke's on you.


----------



## montelatici

Roudy said:


> Those are actual numbers according to Ottoman and Arab sources, that counter your failed Jihadi propaganda.
> 
> "Handful" ha ha ha ha ha. Ya gotta love it.
> 
> Look at the Bibliography of the paper.  All legit historians, researchers, and Ottoman and Arab sources.
> 
> Joke's on you.



No, it is propaganda and has no basis in the Ottoman Census of the 1850 period when there were a handful of Jews in Palestine, as the British clearly stated.

As I said, about 8,000 Jews in 1850. LOL









Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893 on JSTOR

You are the joke, grasping at straws when I have all the source data.  Give it up. LOL


----------



## montelatici

Ruddy in action:


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are actual numbers according to Ottoman and Arab sources, that counter your failed Jihadi propaganda.
> 
> "Handful" ha ha ha ha ha. Ya gotta love it.
> 
> Look at the Bibliography of the paper.  All legit historians, researchers, and Ottoman and Arab sources.
> 
> Joke's on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is propaganda and has no basis in the Ottoman Census of the 1850 period when there were a handful of Jews in Palestine, as the British clearly stated.
> 
> As I said, about 8,000 Jews in 1850. LOL
> 
> View attachment 145405
> 
> View attachment 145407
> 
> Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893 on JSTOR
> 
> You are the joke, grasping at straws when I have all the source data.  Give it up. LOL
Click to expand...

Bullshit, Ottoman records indicate over 40,000 Jews in Jerusalem alone.


----------



## montelatici

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are actual numbers according to Ottoman and Arab sources, that counter your failed Jihadi propaganda.
> 
> "Handful" ha ha ha ha ha. Ya gotta love it.
> 
> Look at the Bibliography of the paper.  All legit historians, researchers, and Ottoman and Arab sources.
> 
> Joke's on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is propaganda and has no basis in the Ottoman Census of the 1850 period when there were a handful of Jews in Palestine, as the British clearly stated.
> 
> As I said, about 8,000 Jews in 1850. LOL
> 
> View attachment 145405
> 
> View attachment 145407
> 
> Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893 on JSTOR
> 
> You are the joke, grasping at straws when I have all the source data.  Give it up. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, Ottoman records indicate over 40,000 Jews in Jerusalem alone.
Click to expand...


No, Ottoman records show that there were less than 8,000 Jews in all of Palestine in 1850. As depicted in the Ottoman census posted earlier.  Do you think you somehow "win" a forum contest by posting nonsense and deflecting?


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are actual numbers according to Ottoman and Arab sources, that counter your failed Jihadi propaganda.
> 
> "Handful" ha ha ha ha ha. Ya gotta love it.
> 
> Look at the Bibliography of the paper.  All legit historians, researchers, and Ottoman and Arab sources.
> 
> Joke's on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is propaganda and has no basis in the Ottoman Census of the 1850 period when there were a handful of Jews in Palestine, as the British clearly stated.
> 
> As I said, about 8,000 Jews in 1850. LOL
> 
> View attachment 145405
> 
> View attachment 145407
> 
> Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893 on JSTOR
> 
> You are the joke, grasping at straws when I have all the source data.  Give it up. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, Ottoman records indicate over 40,000 Jews in Jerusalem alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Ottoman records show that there were less than 8,000 Jews in all of Palestine in 1850. As depicted in the Ottoman census posted earlier.  Do you think you somehow "win" a forum contest by posting nonsense and deflecting?
Click to expand...

So you think by repeating this gibberish thousands of time over multiple threads it somehow magically becomes true?

http://badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/publications/Jerusalem1948-CHAP1.PDF

Ottoman Jerusalem: The Growth of the City outside the Walls

EDUCATION IN OTTOMAN JERUSALEM

A publication on education in greater Syria from 1882 showed that there were
a total of 3,854 students in school in Jerusalem (2,768 boys and 1,086 girls) and
235 teachers. The number of girls in Christian schools (Evangelical, Greek
Orthodox, Latin, Greek Catholic, and Armenian) were slightly more than the number
of boys (926 girls to 861 boys). While the majority of these students were Christians
four of the Evangelical schools (two for boys and two for girls) totaling 138 students
exclusively taught Jews. In addition, there were 1,707 students in Jewish schools,
160 of which were girls. In the eight Muslim schools, all of which were for boys,
there were 360 students. In 1891, the Government opened a general [secondary]
school (Rushdiya) [sic] in our city, where all the children of the city, regardless of
their religion, could attend classes in Arabic, Turkish, French, and the basic
sciences. It was also recorded that a Muslim school for girls had been established.

Population Growth

Jerusalem had become the largest city in Palestine and the political and cultural
center of the country at the end of the Ottoman era, on the eve of World War I.
Much scholarship on the subject reveals the difficulties in trying to establish
definitive population estimates for this period. The Ottoman census figures of 1905
reveal a total of 32,400 Ottoman nationals in Jerusalem: 13,400 Jews, 11,000
Muslims, and 8,000 Christians. However, these numbers do not reflect those with
foreign nationality living in the city which more than likely would raise the numbers
of Jews and Christians.

Jewish sources for this year contend a much higher number,
including one estimating 50,000 Jews in a total population of 75,000.

The Ottoman sources for 1914 for the entire
Qada' of Jerusalem, give the number of Jewish citizens to be 18,190.

"In 1917, Colonel Zaki Bey, head of the Jerusalem Wheat Syndicate,
reported to Jamal Pasha that Jerusalem had 31,147 Jews in an overall
population of 53,410. These figures were based on birth certificates
and police records; their accuracy is proven by the first compre-
hensive census in Jerusalem, made by the British in 1922. This
census showed a general population of 62,000, including 34,300
Jews."

Statistics that record the residential area of the population in the different parts
of the city were not taken at this period. However, it is known that at the beginning
of the British Mandate, the area of the New City was four times greater than that of
the Old City.

Residents of the New City at the end of Ottoman rule, according to
Ben-Ariehs estimates, were as follows: 2,000-2,400 Muslims, around 15% of the
estimated 12,000 Muslim Jerusalemites, and 29,000 of the total 45,000 Jews.
Christians constituted 15% of the population in the New City (or approximately 5-
6,000 people).


----------



## montelatici

A lot of fake facts from propaganda sites. I provided the facts from the source documents.  You lose.


----------



## Roudy

My real facts based on Ottoman numbers, historians and researchers vs your wishful, fake propaganda of "no Jews".

Ha ha ha.


----------



## montelatici

But the facts show that there were about 8,000 Jews in Palestine between 1844 through 1856.  So your Hasbara bullshit loses.  I post the source data, not Hasbara propaganda.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> But the facts show that there were about 8,000 Jews in Palestine between 1844 through 1856.  So your Hasbara bullshit loses.  I post the source data, not Hasbara propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 146042


Get a life, your numbers from the 1800's include all of "Palestine" (which included Syria and parts of many Arab countries today) of which the ottomans didn't even recognize such a thing as "Palestine" for the 700 years that they ruled the region. That is assuming your source isn't bogus and irrelvant, which it usually is.  

Another epic propaganda fail.  Ha ha ha.


----------



## Roudy

P F Tinmore said:


>


The untold story of Pallywood IsalmoNazi propaganda. Click if you dare. Well actually it isn't untold, in fact the deception campaign is well known.


----------



## montelatici

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the facts show that there were about 8,000 Jews in Palestine between 1844 through 1856.  So your Hasbara bullshit loses.  I post the source data, not Hasbara propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 146042
> 
> 
> 
> Get a life, your numbers from the 1800's include all of "Palestine" (which included Syria and parts of many Arab countries today) of which the ottomans didn't even recognize such a thing as "Palestine" for the 700 years that they ruled the region. That is assuming your source isn't bogus and irrelvant, which it usually is.
> 
> Another epic propaganda fail.  Ha ha ha.
Click to expand...


It is the source data.  Give up. Of course Filistin was a region recognized by the Ottomans, your Hasbara bullshit was debunked long ago. You always lose, you idiot, because you try to use propaganda to dispute the facts.





Mandel Neville J. Ottoman Policy | Zionism | Palestine (Region)


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the facts show that there were about 8,000 Jews in Palestine between 1844 through 1856.  So your Hasbara bullshit loses.  I post the source data, not Hasbara propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 146042
> 
> 
> 
> Get a life, your numbers from the 1800's include all of "Palestine" (which included Syria and parts of many Arab countries today) of which the ottomans didn't even recognize such a thing as "Palestine" for the 700 years that they ruled the region. That is assuming your source isn't bogus and irrelvant, which it usually is.
> 
> Another epic propaganda fail.  Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the source data.  Give up. Of course Filistin was a region recognized by the Ottomans, your Hasbara bullshit was debunked long ago. You always lose, you idiot, because you try to use propaganda to dispute the facts.
> 
> View attachment 146223
> 
> Mandel Neville J. Ottoman Policy | Zionism | Palestine (Region)
Click to expand...

Pffffttt.  More repetitive propaganda. The Ottomans started calling it "Falastine" as a result of European influences.  It had been called Southern Syria throughout Ottoman and Arab rule before that.


Source data?  Ha ha ha. Look at the bibliography of the paper in the footnotes, it's quite extensive. 

So again, you  have no numbers that contradict a clear Jewish majority in Jerusalem in the 1800's as indicated by the Jersualem Ottoman census of 1905-1906.

You missed the part of your own document that said "Jews were allowed to settle" in fact they were invited by the ottomans as early as the 1400's since they recognized how holy the land is to the Jews, more than anyone else.


----------



## montelatici

Oh dear.



Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the facts show that there were about 8,000 Jews in Palestine between 1844 through 1856.  So your Hasbara bullshit loses.  I post the source data, not Hasbara propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 146042
> 
> 
> 
> Get a life, your numbers from the 1800's include all of "Palestine" (which included Syria and parts of many Arab countries today) of which the ottomans didn't even recognize such a thing as "Palestine" for the 700 years that they ruled the region. That is assuming your source isn't bogus and irrelvant, which it usually is.
> 
> Another epic propaganda fail.  Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the source data.  Give up. Of course Filistin was a region recognized by the Ottomans, your Hasbara bullshit was debunked long ago. You always lose, you idiot, because you try to use propaganda to dispute the facts.
> 
> View attachment 146223
> 
> Mandel Neville J. Ottoman Policy | Zionism | Palestine (Region)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffttt.  More repetitive propaganda. The Ottomans started calling it "Falastine" as a result of European influences.  It had been called Southern Syria throughout Ottoman and Arab rule before that.
> 
> 
> Source data?  Ha ha ha. Look at the bibliography of the paper in the footnotes, it's quite extensive.
> 
> So again, you  have no numbers that contradict a clear Jewish majority in Jerusalem in the 1800's as indicated by the Jersualem Ottoman census of 1905-1906.
> 
> You missed the part of your own document that said "Jews were allowed to settle" in fact they were invited by the ottomans as early as the 1400's since they recognized how holy the land is to the Jews, more than anyone else.
Click to expand...


Oh dear.  You just enjoy being battered. LOL


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the facts show that there were about 8,000 Jews in Palestine between 1844 through 1856.  So your Hasbara bullshit loses.  I post the source data, not Hasbara propaganda.
> 
> View attachment 146042
> 
> 
> 
> Get a life, your numbers from the 1800's include all of "Palestine" (which included Syria and parts of many Arab countries today) of which the ottomans didn't even recognize such a thing as "Palestine" for the 700 years that they ruled the region. That is assuming your source isn't bogus and irrelvant, which it usually is.
> 
> Another epic propaganda fail.  Ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the source data.  Give up. Of course Filistin was a region recognized by the Ottomans, your Hasbara bullshit was debunked long ago. You always lose, you idiot, because you try to use propaganda to dispute the facts.
> 
> View attachment 146223
> 
> Mandel Neville J. Ottoman Policy | Zionism | Palestine (Region)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pffffttt.  More repetitive propaganda. The Ottomans started calling it "Falastine" as a result of European influences.  It had been called Southern Syria throughout Ottoman and Arab rule before that.
> 
> 
> Source data?  Ha ha ha. Look at the bibliography of the paper in the footnotes, it's quite extensive.
> 
> So again, you  have no numbers that contradict a clear Jewish majority in Jerusalem in the 1800's as indicated by the Jersualem Ottoman census of 1905-1906.
> 
> You missed the part of your own document that said "Jews were allowed to settle" in fact they were invited by the ottomans as early as the 1400's since they recognized how holy the land is to the Jews, more than anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh dear.  You just enjoy being battered. LOL
> 
> View attachment 146290
> 
> View attachment 146291
Click to expand...

Like I said you intentionally omitted the part that said Jews were allowed to settle.  Amazing that the Jews never took no for an answer, and kept coming back, even though the Ottomans changed their initial posture in the 1500's from asking the Jews to come to Palestine to cracking down on entry in the 1800's, back to allowing them to enter.   That is how Jews maintained a majority in Jerusalem and several other cities according to the Ottoman's own numbers.

Propaganda fail from a know con artist.

This is the part from your own document that you missed, liar.  Read and weep!

"For all this, growing numbers of Jews continued to reach Palestine, and in April 1900 the Mutasarr!f of Jerusalem sent the Grand Vezir a synopsis of the report submitted the previous autumn to the Administrative Council by the local Commission which was supposed to enforce the entry restrictions. Two months later, in June, a committee of enquiry made up of three senior officials from the Ministries of War and Internal Affairs, and from the Cadastre was sent to Palestine.1 19 Officially this Commission came to investigate questions concerning land purchases and building on the colony at Zikhron Ya'aqov but Aaron Aaronsohn, the agronomist, who testified before the commissioners, was alarmed at their inclination to overstep the boundaries of their formal mandate and interest themselves in wider questions of Jewish settlement in Palestine. 120 Then in the autumn of that year the Council of Ministers consolidated the regulations governing Jewish entry and land purchase in Palestine with a view to solving all the problems which had troubled the local authorities in recent years. 121 As from January 28, 1901,122 Ottoman and foreign Jews 'long resident' in Palestine and those 'whose residence is not prohibited' were to enjoy the same rights as other Ottoman subjects. They could buy miri land and build on it in accordance with the Land Code.

Thus, step by step, the status of Jews illegally resident for many years in Palestine had been regularised. They were to be treated as Ottoman subjects, and they, like all Ottomans, could buy land and build on it. Similarly the disabilities previously suffered by Ottoman Jews on account of the recent immigrants had been removed. However, it was still forbidden for any property owner to assist recent Jewish immigrants to remain in Palestine. There were changes in the regulations regarding Jewish pilgrims as well. They were no longer required to pay a cash deposit guaranteeing their departure after one month as previously. Instead, all Jews visiting Palestine as pilgrims (including Ottoman subjects) were to surrender their passports or papers on entry, and in exchange they were to receive a residence permit allowing them to stay in Palestine for three months. This permit, costing one piastre, was to differ in form from other documents given to visitors entering Palestine, and it soon became known as the 'Red Slip' because of its colour. It was to be handed back when the pilgrims departed, so that a check could be kept on Jews visiting Palestine. Detailed statistics were to be compiled at the end of each month to enable the authorities to expel pilgrims whose permits had expired. Ottoman officials were warned that failure to enforce these orders would be severely punished.

But, carefully drafted as they were, the consolidated regulations were fatally flawed. Jews could still enter Palestine as pilgrims and certain categories of Jews illegally resident in Palestine had been granted the right to purchase land. And, on top of that, the Powers did not waste time in unceremoniously rejecting the new regulations. 123 Herein lies a paradox. The Ottoman Government was opposed to modern Jewish settlement in Palestine from the outset. It had good reasons for its opposition and these reasons grew stronger with the passage of time. It knew of Herzl's ideas well before the Zionist Movement was founded. Abdiulhamid too was personally involved and opposed. Ottoman policy was thus clear and constant. It was quickly backed up with restrictions on Jewish entry into Palestine and land purchase there. And, for all that, it failed. But the paradox, as the phrase has it, was more apparent than real. Important defects in the Government's policy have been mentioned. But there was another reason for the failure of Ottoman policy towards modern Jewish settlement in Palestine. It lay in the very real difficulties involved in putting the policy into practice in Palestine. This aspect of the question forms the subject of a second article which is to appear in the next number of this journal. "

OUCH!


----------



## montelatici

Ouch is right. For you.  *"Excluding Palestine"

*


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Ouch is right. For you.  *"Excluding Palestine"
> 
> *


Read again, this is from your own document.  By pretending that you didn't get exposed and humiliated, you just confirmed that you actually did!  Ha ha ha. 

  Thus, step by step, the status of Jews illegally resident for many years in Palestine had been regularised. They were to be treated as Ottoman subjects, and they, like all Ottomans, could buy land and build on it. Similarly the disabilities previously suffered by Ottoman Jews on account of the recent immigrants had been removed. However, it was still forbidden for any property owner to assist recent Jewish immigrants to remain in Palestine. There were changes in the regulations regarding Jewish pilgrims as well. They were no longer required to pay a cash deposit guaranteeing their departure after one month as previously. Instead, all Jews visiting Palestine as pilgrims (including Ottoman subjects) were to surrender their passports or papers on entry, and in exchange they were to receive a residence permit allowing them to stay in Palestine for three months. This permit, costing one piastre, was to differ in form from other documents given to visitors entering Palestine, and it soon became known as the 'Red Slip' because of its colour. It was to be handed back when the pilgrims departed, so that a check could be kept on Jews visiting Palestine. Detailed statistics were to be compiled at the end of each month to enable the authorities to expel pilgrims whose permits had expired. Ottoman officials were warned that failure to enforce these orders would be severely punished.

*But, carefully drafted as they were, the consolidated regulations were fatally flawed. Jews could still enter Palestine as pilgrims and certain categories of Jews illegally resident in Palestine had been granted the right to purchase land. And, on top of that, the Powers did not waste time in unceremoniously rejecting the new regulations. Herein lies a paradox. The Ottoman Government was opposed to modern Jewish settlement in Palestine from the outset. It had good reasons for its opposition and these reasons grew stronger with the passage of time*. It knew of Herzl's ideas well before the Zionist Movement was founded. Abdiulhamid too was personally involved and opposed. Ottoman policy was thus clear and constant. It was quickly backed up with restrictions on Jewish entry into Palestine and land purchase there. *And, for all that, it failed. But the paradox, as the phrase has it, was more apparent than real. Important defects in the Government's policy have been mentioned. But there was another reason for the failure of Ottoman policy towards modern Jewish settlement in Palestine. It lay in the very real difficulties involved in putting the policy into practice in Palestine.* This aspect of the question forms the subject of a second article which is to appear in the next number of this journal. "


----------



## montelatici

Oh dear, the Ottomans did not welcome the European Jews and called the territory Palestine.Double ouch for Ruddy the clown dancer.


----------



## Roudy

Oh dear, I've repetitively pointed Out the conclusion of the document, which says that the policy failed and Jews managed to get in, regardless of the new anti immigration policies that came about in the 1800's.

In other words your own document totally negates your claims and makes you look like a fool.  

And yet, you keep posting these meaningless snippets.  The only conclusion one can arrive is that you must enjoy this self humiliation.

*But, carefully drafted as they were, the consolidated regulations were fatally flawed. Jews could still enter Palestine as pilgrims and certain categories of Jews illegally resident in Palestine had been granted the right to purchase land. And, on top of that, the Powers did not waste time in unceremoniously rejecting the new regulations. Herein lies a paradox. The Ottoman Government was opposed to modern Jewish settlement in Palestine from the outset. It had good reasons for its opposition and these reasons grew stronger with the passage of time*. It knew of Herzl's ideas well before the Zionist Movement was founded. Abdiulhamid too was personally involved and opposed. Ottoman policy was thus clear and constant. It was quickly backed up with restrictions on Jewish entry into Palestine and land purchase there. *And, for all that, it failed. But the paradox, as the phrase has it, was more apparent than real. Important defects in the Government's policy have been mentioned. But there was another reason for the failure of Ottoman policy towards modern Jewish settlement in Palestine. It lay in the very real difficulties involved in putting the policy into practice in Palestine.* This aspect of the question forms the subject of a second article which is to appear in the next number of this journal. "


----------



## montelatici

So the Europeans managed to get in, that wasn't the point at all idiot.  The point is they weren't invited by the Ottomans to enter Palestine as you so often claim, you fool.

 Let us repeat from the source.

"...................on April 28, 1882: The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that* they are not permitted to settle in Palestine.* They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire



http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israeli Apartheid Week Sydney 2012 - Professor John Docker *

**


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> So the Europeans managed to get in, that wasn't the point at all idiot.  The point is they weren't invited by the Ottomans to enter Palestine as you so often claim, you fool.
> 
> Let us repeat from the source.
> 
> "...................on April 28, 1882: The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that* they are not permitted to settle in Palestine.* They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire
> 
> 
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


Bzzzzt wrong again, you cite an article which actually negates your claim, and covers the policy as of 1882.   It does not mention what happened in the 1500's during the expulsion, which Jews were invited to the Ottoman Empire including many cities in "Palestine", which the ottomans called Syria, or Southern Syria for 700 years.   And even your bullshit article doesn't call the Jews "Europeans" as both the Ottomans and the Spaniards recognized that they were descendants of Jews who fled the destruction of the temple in ancient Israel. 

In other words you promote one fake narrarative after another.

Epic fail again.

Golden Jerusalem

"The Spanish were allowed to settle in the wealthier cities of the empire, especially in the European provinces (cities such as: Istanbul, Sarajevo, and Nicopolis), Western and Northern Anatolia, but also in the Mediterranean coastal regions (for example: Jerusalem, Safed, Damascus). Izmir was not settled by Spanish Jews until later. The Jewish population at Jerusalem increased from 70 families in 1488 to 1,500 at the beginning of the 16th century. That of Safed increased from 300 to 2,000 families and almost surpassed Jerusalem in importance."


----------



## montelatici

Ruddy the masochist.

"The Council of Ministers considered the question and in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, excluding Palestine. They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects 5. With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882: The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine.* They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire"

http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Ruddy the masochist.
> 
> "The Council of Ministers considered the question and in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, excluding Palestine. They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects 5. With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882: The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine.* They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire"
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


"1882". 
Fail.


----------



## montelatici

LOL Ruddy the masochist. Proven wrong at every turn.


----------



## Roudy

He got caught lying misquoting an article, and was humiliated.  Yet he keeps coming back repeating the same garbage.

With friends like that the Palestinians don't need any enemies.  Ha ha ha.


----------



## montelatici

Historical facts that prove Ruddy is a propagandist are called misquotes by Ruddy. Let's repeat the fact.  Where is the miquote Bozo?

"The Council of Ministers considered the question and in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, excluding Palestine. They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects 5. With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882: The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine.* They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire"

http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


----------



## Roudy

Hah!  The shameless propogandist talks of facts.  Ya gotta love it.

I think the moron doesn't know when the inquisition happened? 

In 1517 the Turks defeated the Mamlukes, starting almost 400 years of Ottoman rule. As a result of the Spanish Expulsion many Jews settled in Tzfat. They brought life and economic success to the city, starting a period of roughly 200 years that was known as the Golden Age of Safed. Amongst the new settlers were many great Kabbalist whose presents in Tzfat gave it its permanent title as the 'City of Kabbalah'. By the late 1600's the Golden Age of Safed started coming to an end, more people were preferring to live in Yerushalaim and the community was crippled by a Druze rampage of destruction and a devastating earthquake.

*Refugees from the Inquisition 

*
Many Jews who fled the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal made their way to Israel in the 15th and 16th centuries. Most settled in Jerusalem but some were drawn to Tzfat, especially the Kabbalists. The study of Kabbalah was partly developed in the 2nd century A.D. in Northern Israel. Many Kabbalists who moved to the Land of Israel after the upheavals of the Inquisition wanted to live and study in the area where the holy sage, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, author of the Kabbalistic “Zohar” had lived and taught.

*City of Kabbalah 

*
Rabbi Isaac Luria, the ARI was one of the great Kabbalists who came to live in Zefat during the 16th century. The ARI only lived in Tzfat for under three years but during this period he taught and refined the study of Jewish mysticism. Lurianic Kabbalah emphasizes how a Jew’s understanding of the secrets of the Torah can enhance his relationships with G-d and with his fellow man. Lurianic Kabbalah played a strong influence on the development of the Hassidic movement and most Kabbalah scholars, even today, study the ARI’s teachings. Due to the ARI’s influence in Tsfat, the Jewish World began to regard Tzfat as the 'City of Kabbala'.

Other great scholars who lived in Tzfat included Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Rabbi Ya’akov Beirav, Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, Rabbi Moshe ben Yosef di Trani, Rabbi Elazar Azkari, Rabbi Chaim Vital and Rabbi Yosef Caro. Rabbi Caro’s scholarly work “Shulhan Aruch” played a major role in helping post-Inquisition far-flung Jewish communities maintain proper Jewish observances and laws.


----------



## Roudy

Monte having a problem dealing with the truth and reality, what else is new?

Ottoman Empire: A Safe Haven for Jewish Refugees

Interestingly, it was the Sephardic Jews who introduced the printing press into the Ottoman Empire. Sephardic Jews whose ancestors were at the center of the Golden Age of Spain recreated a new golden age within Ottoman lands. *Rabbi Joseph Caro wrote the Shulchan Aruch, the standard code of Jewish law in Safed, Israel, under Ottoman Turkish rule.* The Lekhah Dodi prayer which Jews to date traditionally sing in the Friday evening synagogue services around the world, was composed in medieval Israel by Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz under Ottoman Turkish rule. Joseph Nasi was appointed Duke of Naxos, while Aluaro Mandes was named Duke of Mytylene and Salamon ben Nathan Eskenazi arranged the first diplomatic ties between the Ottoman Turks and the British Empire.

Wealthy Sephardic Jews such as Dona Gracia Mendes Nasi financed the Ottoman Turkish sultan. In return for the contributions of Dana Gracia Mendes Nasi to the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman Sultan offered the Jewish people the city of Tiberius for an independent city state under Ottoman tutelage. Despite local Arab and French opposition, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent continued to support the project.


----------



## montelatici

The fact:

"The Council of Ministers considered the question and in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, excluding Palestine. They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects 5. With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882: The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine.* They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire"

http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


----------



## Roudy

The fact:

Peacemakers in Action

"*Turkish Sultan invited Jews fleeing from the Catholic Inquisition to settle in Palestine and other parts of the Ottoman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople..."*


----------



## Roudy

Poor Monte, can't deal with the fact.  Always promoting lies and false propaganda.  This is from a Turkish source.

Awwww...boohoo!

The sultan Bayezid sent a fleet for the Spanish Jews, and he ordered his subjects to accept the Jews. In 1497 the successive waves of Jews from the Iberian Peninsula arrived to the Ottoman Empire, this time they escaped Portugal. They became the Ottoman Empire citizens, in return they paid a tax and respected Islam as the state religion. Bayezid claimed that Isabella and Ferdinand’s decision weakened economically their country and reinforced his country.

How Spanish Jews found their second home in the Ottoman Empire?

Bayezid II issued the regulation including the threat of the death penalty for everyone who banned Jews’ access to the Ottoman Empire or who treated them badly. Jews from the Iberian Peninsula settled in Constantinople (today’s Istanbul), Adrianopole (today’s Edirne), Salonika, Jerusalem, Bursa, Damascus and Anatolian’s city Amasya. Jews came to the Ottoman Empire with their considerable wealth, and, as in the Iberian Peninsula, they dealt with finances and loans. Jews enjoyed the support from important people in the state and a large freedom. They constituted a privileged community as the trade with West European countries is concerned, because they had a capital, they knew languages and they could make their businesses freely behind the empire’s borders. It happened that Jews borrowed money to very important and powerful people in the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## montelatici

Confusing a blog that writes things like "It happened that Jews borrowed money to very important and powerful people in the Ottoman Empire" with historical works is hilarious.  Let's review the facts:


"The Council of Ministers considered the question and in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, excluding Palestine. They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects 5. With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882: The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine.* They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire"

http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


----------



## Shusha

Do I have this right that monte is arguing FOR the Ottoman's insistence on apartheid policy in preventing the Jewish people from living in certain territory?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Do I have this right that monte is arguing FOR the Ottoman's insistence on apartheid policy in preventing the Jewish people from living in certain territory?



The Ottomans feared that Europeans would create problems in Palestine.  They were right as we see today.

"The real reasons lay elsewhere. They were principally two. First, the Sublime Porte feared the possibility of nurturing another national problem in the Empire. Secondly, it did not want to increase the number of foreign subjects, particularly Europeans, in its domains"

http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israeli Apartheid Week Sydney 2012 - Professor John Docker *

**


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have this right that monte is arguing FOR the Ottoman's insistence on apartheid policy in preventing the Jewish people from living in certain territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottomans feared that Europeans would create problems in Palestine.  They were right as we see today.
Click to expand...


Ah.  So apartheid is okay if the Arabs are doing it.  Pesky Jews.


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Confusing a blog that writes things like "It happened that Jews borrowed money to very important and powerful people in the Ottoman Empire" with historical works is hilarious.  Let's review the facts:
> 
> 
> "The Council of Ministers considered the question and in November 1881 it was announced that: OTTOMAN POLICY AND JEWISH SETTLEMENT 313 [Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, excluding Palestine. They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects 5. With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882: The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that *they are not permitted to settle in Palestine.* They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire"
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf


You're the confused one, thinking people don't realize that during the inquisitions in the 1500's, the Ottomans did indeed invite and allow Jews to settle into Jerusalem, Safed and many cities in "Palestine", and then 400 years later there was a change in that policy, and even THAT failed misrerably.  All in all you've actually helped document a presence and migration of Jews over a period of about 900 years.  Which shows their love for the Promised Land.  And we thank you for that.


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have this right that monte is arguing FOR the Ottoman's insistence on apartheid policy in preventing the Jewish people from living in certain territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottomans feared that Europeans would create problems in Palestine.  They were right as we see today.
> 
> "The real reasons lay elsewhere. They were principally two. First, the Sublime Porte feared the possibility of nurturing another national problem in the Empire. Secondly, it did not want to increase the number of foreign subjects, particularly Europeans, in its domains"
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf
Click to expand...

And according to your own document, it failed.  

Can't keep Jews away from their holy land.


----------



## montelatici

Wow it took some time, but Ruddy finally admits that the Ottomans did not invite the European Jews to Palestine.


----------



## Roudy

Actually they totally DID invite the Jews into Palestine, in the 1500's during the Inquisition, and 400 years later in the 1800's tried to reverse that policy.  The policy failed as Jews were getting in anyhow, and eventually they scrapped it.  Your own document clearly shows this in its conclusion.


----------



## Linkiloo

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have this right that monte is arguing FOR the Ottoman's insistence on apartheid policy in preventing the Jewish people from living in certain territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottomans feared that Europeans would create problems in Palestine.  They were right as we see today.
> 
> "The real reasons lay elsewhere. They were principally two. First, the Sublime Porte feared the possibility of nurturing another national problem in the Empire. Secondly, it did not want to increase the number of foreign subjects, particularly Europeans, in its domains"
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf
Click to expand...

OK so if one "fears" that a group would "cause problems", its legit not to "invite them" to one's domain. I'm wondering why he's tooting the apartheid horn then now in relation to Israel.


----------



## montelatici

Linkiloo said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have this right that monte is arguing FOR the Ottoman's insistence on apartheid policy in preventing the Jewish people from living in certain territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottomans feared that Europeans would create problems in Palestine.  They were right as we see today.
> 
> "The real reasons lay elsewhere. They were principally two. First, the Sublime Porte feared the possibility of nurturing another national problem in the Empire. Secondly, it did not want to increase the number of foreign subjects, particularly Europeans, in its domains"
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so if one "fears" that a group would "cause problems", its legit not to "invite them" to one's domain. I'm wondering why he's tooting the apartheid horn then now in relation to Israel.
Click to expand...


What do you call separating people under the rule of those of the favored religion because of their religions from those of the Government favored religion?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Linkiloo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have this right that monte is arguing FOR the Ottoman's insistence on apartheid policy in preventing the Jewish people from living in certain territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottomans feared that Europeans would create problems in Palestine.  They were right as we see today.
> 
> "The real reasons lay elsewhere. They were principally two. First, the Sublime Porte feared the possibility of nurturing another national problem in the Empire. Secondly, it did not want to increase the number of foreign subjects, particularly Europeans, in its domains"
> 
> http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel, Neville J. Ottoman Policy.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so if one "fears" that a group would "cause problems", its legit not to "invite them" to one's domain. I'm wondering why he's tooting the apartheid horn then now in relation to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call separating people under the rule of those of the favored religion because of their religions from those of the Government favored religion?
Click to expand...

We would call that "virtually all Islamic Middle Eastern backwaters'"


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*

**


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **



It says it all:

"Tariq Ali talks to Bernard Regan, author of The Balfour Declaration, as we approach the centenary of the Imperial British Government’s creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine."

Creation of A Jewish homeland in Palestine......not recreation of the Jewish Homeland on their ancient homeland in Palestine (Land of Israel)

No.....they could not say that  

Some anti Semites sit together and discuss how the Jews would not have (re)created in their ancient homeland (never mentioning it) if the Allies had not won WWI.

"Just go and live there with the "Palestinians"

"Arab Jews"  wow, what a misnomer.

"Palestinian Congress"  ????  (Do they mean the Arab League? )

Uhmmmmm.

Anyone else listened to this more than enlightening conversation?

----------
*Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
*--------------*

(All of which would have been avoided if the Arabs/Muslims extremists had not started a war against the Jews against Jewish sovereignty over their own Jewish homeland. Pity that other clans but the Husseini did not became the most powerful ones in the area.  They would have brought the peace with the Jews necessary, and no war against them.  But does the author and interviewer understand that?)

Both author and interviewer call the Arabs "Palestinians", but not the Jews, when it was the Jews who were using the term Palestinian (Philarmonic, Palestinian Post, etc )during the Mandate, and not the Arabs.

The Palestinians were disarmed.  Seriously?

Again, quite telling.

Who are Tarik Ali and Bernard Regan, really?

(Give us another Masterpiece Theatre video, tin man   )


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says it all:
> 
> "Tariq Ali talks to Bernard Regan, author of The Balfour Declaration, as we approach the centenary of the Imperial British Government’s creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
> 
> Creation of A Jewish homeland in Palestine......not recreation of the Jewish Homeland on their ancient homeland in Palestine (Land of Israel)
> 
> No.....they could not say that
> 
> Some anti Semites sit together and discuss how the Jews would not have (re)created in their ancient homeland (never mentioning it) if the Allies had not won WWI.
> 
> "Just go and live there with the "Palestinians"
> 
> "Arab Jews"  wow, what a misnomer.
> 
> "Palestinian Congress"  ????  (Do they mean the Arab League? )
> 
> Uhmmmmm.
> 
> Anyone else listened to this more than enlightening conversation?
> 
> ----------
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> *--------------*
> 
> (All of which would have been avoided if the Arabs/Muslims extremists had not started a war against the Jews against Jewish sovereignty over their own Jewish homeland. Pity that other clans but the Husseini did not became the most powerful ones in the area.  They would have brought the peace with the Jews necessary, and no war against them.  But does the author and interviewer understand that?)
> 
> Both author and interviewer call the Arabs "Palestinians", but not the Jews, when it was the Jews who were using the term Palestinian (Philarmonic, Palestinian Post, etc )during the Mandate, and not the Arabs.
> 
> The Palestinians were disarmed.  Seriously?
> 
> Again, quite telling.
> 
> Who are Tarik Ali and Bernard Regan, really?
> 
> (Give us another Masterpiece Theatre video, tin man   )
Click to expand...

Oh jeese, more Israeli talking points.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says it all:
> 
> "Tariq Ali talks to Bernard Regan, author of The Balfour Declaration, as we approach the centenary of the Imperial British Government’s creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
> 
> Creation of A Jewish homeland in Palestine......not recreation of the Jewish Homeland on their ancient homeland in Palestine (Land of Israel)
> 
> No.....they could not say that
> 
> Some anti Semites sit together and discuss how the Jews would not have (re)created in their ancient homeland (never mentioning it) if the Allies had not won WWI.
> 
> "Just go and live there with the "Palestinians"
> 
> "Arab Jews"  wow, what a misnomer.
> 
> "Palestinian Congress"  ????  (Do they mean the Arab League? )
> 
> Uhmmmmm.
> 
> Anyone else listened to this more than enlightening conversation?
> 
> ----------
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> *--------------*
> 
> (All of which would have been avoided if the Arabs/Muslims extremists had not started a war against the Jews against Jewish sovereignty over their own Jewish homeland. Pity that other clans but the Husseini did not became the most powerful ones in the area.  They would have brought the peace with the Jews necessary, and no war against them.  But does the author and interviewer understand that?)
> 
> Both author and interviewer call the Arabs "Palestinians", but not the Jews, when it was the Jews who were using the term Palestinian (Philarmonic, Palestinian Post, etc )during the Mandate, and not the Arabs.
> 
> The Palestinians were disarmed.  Seriously?
> 
> Again, quite telling.
> 
> Who are Tarik Ali and Bernard Regan, really?
> 
> (Give us another Masterpiece Theatre video, tin man   )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, more Israeli talking points.
Click to expand...


Oh, gee, more Christian ignorance and hatred of Jews.

Keep it up tin man


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **



I sent this video to a friend of mine.  A History Professor.  I found the comments about it very interesting and wanted to share them here:

Part 1

 Thanks for this video. I sat down mesmerized  to see what they would be discussing. You are already forewarned  that the historian is part of a Pro-Palestine solidarity group and so it is going to be slanted since the time he  opens his mouth-even when some of the facts are correct.
 The interviewer is obviously leading with the questions,  and I was quite annoyed with the different alternatives to  the real facts. 
That is not how history is analyzed.Some of his alternative scenarios were indeed slanted. Stupid what ifs !

 If Tariq Ali is doing this interview it is because he not only sided with the Palestinians, he  IS actively involved in supporting terrorism. He lives in Switzerland , and  the US knows his background, and has not been allowed in the US.
 Once we dismiss these leading questions we do have the facts but also slanted  to make sure that at the end we say poor dispossessed  " Palestinians."
  First of all he should mention that the Arabs came from the Hejaz as invaders and they stayed for the duration. Just discussing  Balfour out of the blue is then easier to   trounce the truth.

 Issues that bothered me were:

a) prior to  Balfour -which was nice to have but not totally necessary- we have  already   Jews there since the foundation of Tel Aviv was in 1909. Surely,way before Balfour we have Hovevei Zion and the Biluim. Balfour is one small key in the whole process.

b) Ahem!  "Herzl was cynical when he approached the Czar,"when the czar was one of the most antisemitic individuals. "  Cynical? Absolutely not. Herzl, as far as I know was willing to meet with anybody who would help the Zionist movement go forward. Given the Ottoman capitulations stipulations he knew that he needed a sponsor, be the Kaiser, the Sultan himself,  or  even the Czar.
  His prior tries to meet the Czar were unsuccessful, So he approached a friend, Baroness Bettina von Suttner. She was an Austrian pacifist who wrote a book called           "Put Down the Arms" for which she won a Nobel Prize.  Perhaps through her there would be a meeting with the Czar. Suttner knew that there would be a  disarmament conference in The Hague, so through her friends she tired to accomplish Herzl's meeting with the Czar. This didn't happen because the Herzl movement was considered   " socialist agitation." Later on he made further attempts   to meet the Czar. The latter failed for the same reason::distrust of Herzl's movement and what impact will have on  the Jews of Russia. He met with Plevhe after the Kishniev pogrom- but never the Czar- In that meeting he asked help to pressure the Turkish Sultan, help  Jewish immigration via taxation, and allow Zionists organizations to function in Russia.   While Plevhe immediately agreed- since he didn't want the Kishniev pogrom discussed- you know that this was not an agreement he was just using Herzl.

b) Chutzpah,absolute chutzpah  comparing  Spanish Guernica to the  response of the British in the  Revolt of 1936-39. That is an exaggerated comparison to present the Arab as just victim again.. Surely, we know that the Arabs, as is their usual custom, never opened anything for discussion and rioted since the 1920,  but in  the 1936-39 revolt in Mandate  Palestine,  the Arabs went also directly against the British; so, yes , the British responded. NO, it is not Guernica. Furthermore,. the Mufti was directing all issues from his compound in Berlin. He chose the wrong side and Germany didn't win, so he didn't win either.  How can one twist the facts and not mention the Mufti at all?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 2

c) Haganah: The historian said that  The  Haganah forces were trained by the British. No!  It was  Jabotinsky who decided to form independent units of self-defense to defend the Yishuv from Arab assaults. Neither the British nor the Zionist Commission  authorized these self defense units. So, no, not British trained. His first test was with the Nebi Musa festival in the 1920 that we know culminated in a riot.  The British responded by jailing Jabotinski. Then Herbert Samuel, the Jewish Commissioner  offered an amnesty for the Nebi Musa riots, and freed  not only Jabotinsky, but  two Arab who were found raping  Jewish women then. Again,  they claiming victimization in a one sided way.  British cooperation with Jews in  the Mandate was before the Haganah with the Zion Mule Corps,  and it was short lived after the British losses in Gallipoli.  

d) British Jews and others being against Zionism. Surely, they were because of the accusation of "double loyalty" that exists up to today whether  Israel existed or not.
 Actually, even when some Jews were mobilizing to protect the Russian and Polish Jews after the First World  War, Most British Jews were not so eager to be involved either in what became known as Minorities Treaties.

e)  What is the relevance of mentioning  that Mizrachi Jews didn't like the Ashkenazim?  It goes both ways since the customs and practices of Judaism were not the same and surely for one the Mizrachi did not like that the Ashkenazim were condescending.  The reason they did that was to say how nice the relationship between Mizarachi Jews and the Arabs.   However, it is not true that Mizrachi Jews- apart from speaking Arabic - were integrated in those Arab communities in   Mandate Palestine.   The Turkish pasha in charge  of the  Paletine area during the Ottomans made sure that there would be animosity between Arabs and Jews. This integration  of Mizrachi Jews in the Arab communities in Mandate Palestine or before is fiction!

 f) Mentioning Deir Yassin is an obligation for them but no way they mention all the rioting that they did since the 1920s  to 1939 attacking Jews. And they don't mention either that there were many Arabs that came to Mandate Palestine because there were better conditions of work.


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says it all:
> 
> "Tariq Ali talks to Bernard Regan, author of The Balfour Declaration, as we approach the centenary of the Imperial British Government’s creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
> 
> Creation of A Jewish homeland in Palestine......not recreation of the Jewish Homeland on their ancient homeland in Palestine (Land of Israel)
> 
> No.....they could not say that
> 
> Some anti Semites sit together and discuss how the Jews would not have (re)created in their ancient homeland (never mentioning it) if the Allies had not won WWI.
> 
> "Just go and live there with the "Palestinians"
> 
> "Arab Jews"  wow, what a misnomer.
> 
> "Palestinian Congress"  ????  (Do they mean the Arab League? )
> 
> Uhmmmmm.
> 
> Anyone else listened to this more than enlightening conversation?
> 
> ----------
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> *--------------*
> 
> (All of which would have been avoided if the Arabs/Muslims extremists had not started a war against the Jews against Jewish sovereignty over their own Jewish homeland. Pity that other clans but the Husseini did not became the most powerful ones in the area.  They would have brought the peace with the Jews necessary, and no war against them.  But does the author and interviewer understand that?)
> 
> Both author and interviewer call the Arabs "Palestinians", but not the Jews, when it was the Jews who were using the term Palestinian (Philarmonic, Palestinian Post, etc )during the Mandate, and not the Arabs.
> 
> The Palestinians were disarmed.  Seriously?
> 
> Again, quite telling.
> 
> Who are Tarik Ali and Bernard Regan, really?
> 
> (Give us another Masterpiece Theatre video, tin man   )
Click to expand...


So if the people of Palestine, the 99% Muslims and Christians in 1850, had just accepted the European Jews as their rulers everything would have been fine. You are one sick puppy.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says it all:
> 
> "Tariq Ali talks to Bernard Regan, author of The Balfour Declaration, as we approach the centenary of the Imperial British Government’s creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
> 
> Creation of A Jewish homeland in Palestine......not recreation of the Jewish Homeland on their ancient homeland in Palestine (Land of Israel)
> 
> No.....they could not say that
> 
> Some anti Semites sit together and discuss how the Jews would not have (re)created in their ancient homeland (never mentioning it) if the Allies had not won WWI.
> 
> "Just go and live there with the "Palestinians"
> 
> "Arab Jews"  wow, what a misnomer.
> 
> "Palestinian Congress"  ????  (Do they mean the Arab League? )
> 
> Uhmmmmm.
> 
> Anyone else listened to this more than enlightening conversation?
> 
> ----------
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> *--------------*
> 
> (All of which would have been avoided if the Arabs/Muslims extremists had not started a war against the Jews against Jewish sovereignty over their own Jewish homeland. Pity that other clans but the Husseini did not became the most powerful ones in the area.  They would have brought the peace with the Jews necessary, and no war against them.  But does the author and interviewer understand that?)
> 
> Both author and interviewer call the Arabs "Palestinians", but not the Jews, when it was the Jews who were using the term Palestinian (Philarmonic, Palestinian Post, etc )during the Mandate, and not the Arabs.
> 
> The Palestinians were disarmed.  Seriously?
> 
> Again, quite telling.
> 
> Who are Tarik Ali and Bernard Regan, really?
> 
> (Give us another Masterpiece Theatre video, tin man   )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the people of Palestine, the 99% Muslims and Christians in 1850, had just accepted the European Jews as their rulers everything would have been fine. You are one sick puppy.
Click to expand...


1850?  Under Ottoman Rule?

Your one trick as a pony does not work on any thread, now - does it?

So, lets see, you accept the 500 years of Ottoman European rule, but would not accept any Indigenous Jewish rule on their own ancient land AFTER the Ottoman rule was over, IF those Jews had lived in Europe?

Say it isn't so


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says it all:
> 
> "Tariq Ali talks to Bernard Regan, author of The Balfour Declaration, as we approach the centenary of the Imperial British Government’s creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
> 
> Creation of A Jewish homeland in Palestine......not recreation of the Jewish Homeland on their ancient homeland in Palestine (Land of Israel)
> 
> No.....they could not say that
> 
> Some anti Semites sit together and discuss how the Jews would not have (re)created in their ancient homeland (never mentioning it) if the Allies had not won WWI.
> 
> "Just go and live there with the "Palestinians"
> 
> "Arab Jews"  wow, what a misnomer.
> 
> "Palestinian Congress"  ????  (Do they mean the Arab League? )
> 
> Uhmmmmm.
> 
> Anyone else listened to this more than enlightening conversation?
> 
> ----------
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> *--------------*
> 
> (All of which would have been avoided if the Arabs/Muslims extremists had not started a war against the Jews against Jewish sovereignty over their own Jewish homeland. Pity that other clans but the Husseini did not became the most powerful ones in the area.  They would have brought the peace with the Jews necessary, and no war against them.  But does the author and interviewer understand that?)
> 
> Both author and interviewer call the Arabs "Palestinians", but not the Jews, when it was the Jews who were using the term Palestinian (Philarmonic, Palestinian Post, etc )during the Mandate, and not the Arabs.
> 
> The Palestinians were disarmed.  Seriously?
> 
> Again, quite telling.
> 
> Who are Tarik Ali and Bernard Regan, really?
> 
> (Give us another Masterpiece Theatre video, tin man   )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the people of Palestine, the 99% Muslims and Christians in 1850, had just accepted the European Jews as their rulers everything would have been fine. You are one sick puppy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1850?  Under Ottoman Rule?
> 
> Your one trick as a pony does not work on any thread, now - does it?
> 
> So, lets see, you accept the 500 years of Ottoman European rule, but would not accept any Indigenous Jewish rule on their own ancient land AFTER the Ottoman rule was over, IF those Jews had lived in Europe?
> 
> Say it isn't so
Click to expand...


European Jews are not indigenous to Palestine, or the Middle East.  They are indigenous to Europe.  Why would native people that made up 95% of the population of Palestine in 1920 agree to allow Europeans to rule them after the Ottomans were thrown out.  Like other native people within the former Ottoman possessions, they believed the Covenant of the League of Nations which stated that the inhabitants of those territories would gain independence and sovreignty.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> So if the people of Palestine, the 99% Muslims and Christians in 1850, had just accepted the European Jews as their rulers everything would have been fine.



What they SHOULD have done follow the sentiments of Faisal I:

_"We Arabs... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; *we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home...* I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilised peoples of the world."_
_
_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us,


Indeed, the Palestinians were helped out of their homes and off their land.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians were helped out of their homes and off their land.
Click to expand...


Only because they violently rejected the idea of welcoming the Jewish people home.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians were helped out of their homes and off their land.
Click to expand...


Only because they chose to declare war on the indigenous Jews, rather than live peacefully as Faisal suggested.

Some people never learn.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians were helped out of their homes and off their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because they chose to declare war on the indigenous Jews, rather than live peacefully as Faisal suggested.
> 
> Some people never learn.
Click to expand...

Well, the Palestinians always did reject the Zionist settler colonial project.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Well, the Palestinians always did reject the Zionist settler colonial project.



But only because they framed it that way.  Instead of framing it the way Faisal did -- as the Jews returning home.  And welcome to.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians were helped out of their homes and off their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because they chose to declare war on the indigenous Jews, rather than live peacefully as Faisal suggested.
> 
> Some people never learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the Palestinians always did reject the Zionist settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


I see, the Arab colonialists rejected the Jewish indigenous people of the land and granted them the same title they had , "Colonialists".

"The Arab Settler Colonialist Project, settling the world since the 7th Century CE"


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians were helped out of their homes and off their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because they chose to declare war on the indigenous Jews, rather than live peacefully as Faisal suggested.
> 
> Some people never learn.
Click to expand...


How can colonial settlers from Europe be indigenous to Palestine?  You are out of your mind.

Of course the native people of Palestine resisted subjugation by European settler colonists, WTF is the matter with you.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians were helped out of their homes and off their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because they chose to declare war on the indigenous Jews, rather than live peacefully as Faisal suggested.
> 
> Some people never learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can colonial settlers from Europe be indigenous to Palestine?  You are out of your mind.
> 
> Of course the native people of Palestine resisted subjugation by European settler colonists, WTF is the matter with you.
Click to expand...


Very easy Habib.

Keep up with me.

The Jews were living in Asia Minor, the land of Israel.  Some of them migrated to other areas of the known world, in Asia or in Europe.
They remained there for centuries, if not even longer, like the Jews who left after the destruction of the first Temple, or those who followed Caesar after the Romans took over Judea, or the Jews who were taken to Europe by the Romans after the destruction of the second Temple.

Got it?

Jews from Asia Minor, the Land of Israel, went to Europe.  And later they decided they wanted to go back to Asia Minor, their ancient homeland, the Land of Israel.

After 2000 years of Christian terrorism on Jews, those Jews decided that they had had enough of those bastards and it was time to go back to their ancient homeland and take over and be sovereign again of their ancient land, living together with all other people already living there, be it Jews who had always lived there, Jews who had returned at any other time, the Arabs, the Druze, the Beduins, the Bahai, and everyone else who was living on their ancient land.

And they succeeded in spite of all the attempts to kill them all.
And they created a beautiful, great, wonderful and successful country out of the need to survive against all the terrorist attempts not only by the Christians but by the Muslims as well. 

Because in the end, absolutely nothing makes extreme sick Christians and Muslims happy then to attack, rape, rob, expel, convert, but especially.....kill Jews.

It is a sport with them.

It is so simple, anyone can understand it.

Now, can you?


----------



## montelatici

Europeans that adopted Judaism as a religion do not have Middle Eastern ancestry, much less any ancestral ties to Palestine.

_"The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October 8) in Nature Communications.......
_
*European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"*


Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree


Israel is a disgusting little Apartheid state set up by European colonial settlers facilitated by force of British arms.  Stealing land from native inhabitants through invasion and war with the help of the world's leading colonial power is nothing to be proud about.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Learniñg about Islamist colonialism.


----------



## fanger

Nelson mandela on Palestine


----------



## Sixties Fan

fanger said:


> Nelson mandela on Palestine



This is related to the Balfour Declaration, how?


----------



## fanger

the title of the thread is "
*The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate*
* the Balfour Declaration thread is two doors down, next to the toilets*


----------



## Sixties Fan

fanger said:


> the title of the thread is "
> *The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate*
> * the Balfour Declaration thread is two doors down, next to the toilets*



Where in that video, or at any other time, has Mandela declared that the Balfour Declaration should not have happened?
When did he say that Israel should not have happened?
When did he say that the Mandate for Palestine should never have been?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Christian group marks 120 years since Zionist Congress


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.
--
...Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case.
---
Pappe is more brazen. He, too, often omits and ignores significant evidence, and he, too, alleges that a source tells us the opposite of what it in fact says, but he will also simply and straightforwardly falsify evidence. 
----
 Pappe repeatedly asserts, in order to demonstrate an Arab readiness for conciliation, that the Palestinian leadership in 1920-1922, including Hajj Amin, was “ambiguous” about Zionism and “was willing to compromise.” This is nonsense. Indeed, Hajj Amin was tried and convicted in absentia by a British court for helping to incite the murderous riots of April 1920.

Some of Pappe’s “historical” assertions are, quite obviously, politically motivated, but they are mistakes nonetheless. He refers to “statements made by Jewish and Zionist leaders about the need to build the ‘Third Temple.’” Husaynis often leveled that charge against the Jews, in order to incite the Muslim masses. But which important Zionist leader in the 1920s advocated the construction of a Third Temple? None whom I can name. Later Pappe reinforces this lie by remarking that “Palestinian historiography, including recent work that draws on newly revealed materials, suggests that the mufti’s concern was not baseless, and that there really was a Jewish plan to seize the entire Haram [Temple Mount].” Pappe offers no evidence for this extraordinary assertion. 
------
Read the whole thing, which also shows that Pappe has no problem making up facts about his own history as well!

(full article online)

Benny Morris owns Ilan Pappe (link to full TNR article) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## montelatici

I see that the propaganda mongers are still spouting that crap.  Straight from a Zionist propaganda site. Congratulations.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> I see that the propaganda mongers are still spouting that crap.  Straight from a Zionist propaganda site. Congratulations.


Tsk, tsk, tsk, you cannot show proof of the contrary of what is being said, so you go "PROPAGANDA".

What a lazy person.

No points


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the propaganda mongers are still spouting that crap.  Straight from a Zionist propaganda site. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, you cannot show proof of the contrary of what is being said, so you go "PROPAGANDA".
> 
> What a lazy person.
> 
> No points
Click to expand...


Did anyone need to show proof of the contrary when Goebbels spouted his propaganda?


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the propaganda mongers are still spouting that crap.  Straight from a Zionist propaganda site. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, you cannot show proof of the contrary of what is being said, so you go "PROPAGANDA".
> 
> What a lazy person.
> 
> No points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone need to show proof of the contrary when Goebbels spouted his propaganda?
Click to expand...

Saying nothing again.  What else is new?
No one around the Nazis dared to show the opposite of what Goebbles spouted against the Jews.  They were of a like mind.
If they were not, they stayed quiet. They knew it would cost their lives 

After Gobbles is gone, one can tell all the lies he told about the Jews.

Today, we do not need to wait in order to know all the lies told about Jews, ZIonism, the Manadate  and Israel, and much less wait to speak about it.


----------



## JoelT1

“Creation” of Israel took place over 3000 years ago, according to the Arab haeological record. Jesus is King of Israel in the Bible.

UN and Britain are newcomers




Coyote said:


> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *


----------



## fanger

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the propaganda mongers are still spouting that crap.  Straight from a Zionist propaganda site. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, you cannot show proof of the contrary of what is being said, so you go "PROPAGANDA".
> 
> What a lazy person.
> 
> No points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone need to show proof of the contrary when Goebbels spouted his propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying nothing again.  What else is new?
> No one around the Nazis dared to show the opposite of what Goebbles spouted against the Jews.  They were of a like mind.
> If they were not, they stayed quiet. They knew it would cost their lives
> 
> After Gobbles is gone, one can tell all the lies he told about the Jews.
> 
> Today, we do not need to wait in order to know all the lies told about Jews, ZIonism, the Manadate  and Israel, and much less wait to speak about it.
Click to expand...


T_*he Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine*_ is a book written by author Edwin Black, documenting the transfer agreement ("Haavara Agreement" in Hebrew) between Zionistorganizations and Nazi Germany to transfer a number of Jews and their assets to Palestine. Shortly after Samuel Untermeyer's return to the U.S. from Germany in 1933, articles appeared on the front page of newspapers in London and New York declaring that "Judea declares war on Germany" This resulted in an effective boycott of German goods in many countries, affecting German exports significantly. The agreement was partly inspired by this boycott which appeared to threaten the Reich.[1] Controversial as it may be seen in hindsight, it marked one of the few rescues of Jews and their assets in the years leading up to the Holocaust.
The Transfer Agreement - Wikipedia

Palestinian jews colluded with nazi's


----------



## Sixties Fan

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the propaganda mongers are still spouting that crap.  Straight from a Zionist propaganda site. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, you cannot show proof of the contrary of what is being said, so you go "PROPAGANDA".
> 
> What a lazy person.
> 
> No points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone need to show proof of the contrary when Goebbels spouted his propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying nothing again.  What else is new?
> No one around the Nazis dared to show the opposite of what Goebbles spouted against the Jews.  They were of a like mind.
> If they were not, they stayed quiet. They knew it would cost their lives
> 
> After Gobbles is gone, one can tell all the lies he told about the Jews.
> 
> Today, we do not need to wait in order to know all the lies told about Jews, ZIonism, the Manadate  and Israel, and much less wait to speak about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> T_*he Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine*_ is a book written by author Edwin Black, documenting the transfer agreement ("Haavara Agreement" in Hebrew) between Zionistorganizations and Nazi Germany to transfer a number of Jews and their assets to Palestine. Shortly after Samuel Untermeyer's return to the U.S. from Germany in 1933, articles appeared on the front page of newspapers in London and New York declaring that "Judea declares war on Germany" This resulted in an effective boycott of German goods in many countries, affecting German exports significantly. The agreement was partly inspired by this boycott which appeared to threaten the Reich.[1] Controversial as it may be seen in hindsight, it marked one of the few rescues of Jews and their assets in the years leading up to the Holocaust.
> The Transfer Agreement - Wikipedia
> 
> Palestinian jews colluded with nazi's
Click to expand...


*. What efforts were made to save the Jews fleeing from Germany before World War II began?
Answer:* Various organizations attempted to facilitate the emigration of the Jews (and non-Jews persecuted as Jews) from Germany. Among the most active were the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, HICEM, the Central British Fund for German Jewry, the _Reichsvertretung der Deutschen Juden_ (Reich Representation of German Jews), which represented German Jewry, and other non-Jewish groups such as the League of Nations High Commission for Refugees (Jewish and other) coming from Germany, and the American Friends Service Committee. Among the programs launched were the "Transfer Agreement" between the Jewish Agency and the German government whereby immigrants to Palestine were allowed to transfer their funds to that country in conjunction with the import of German goods to Palestine. Other efforts focused on retraining prospective emigrants in order to increase the number of those eligible for visas, since some countries barred the entry of members of certain professions. Other groups attempted to help in various phases of refugee work: selection of candidates for emigration, transportation of refugees, aid in immigrant absorption, etc. Some groups attempted to facilitate increased emigration by enlisting the aid of governments and international organizations in seeking refugee havens. The League of Nations established an agency to aid refugees but its success was extremely limited due to a lack of political power and adequate funding.

The United States and Great Britain convened a conference in 1938 at Evian, France, seeking a solution to the refugee problem. With the exception of the Dominican Republic, the nations assembled refused to change their stringent immigration regulations, which were instrumental in preventing large-scale immigration.

In 1939, the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, which had been established at the Evian Conference, initiated negotiations with leading German officials in an attempt to arrange for the relocation of a significant portion of German Jewry. However, these talks failed. Efforts were made for the illegal entry of Jewish immigrants to Palestine as early as July 1934, but were later halted until July 1938. Large-scale efforts were resumed under the _Mosad le-Aliya Bet_, Revisionist Zionists, and private parties. Attempts were also made, with some success, to facilitate the illegal entry of refugees to various countries in Latin America.

36 Questions About the Holocaust - Simon Wiesenthal Center Multimedia Learning Center


----------



## rylah

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the propaganda mongers are still spouting that crap.  Straight from a Zionist propaganda site. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, you cannot show proof of the contrary of what is being said, so you go "PROPAGANDA".
> 
> What a lazy person.
> 
> No points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone need to show proof of the contrary when Goebbels spouted his propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying nothing again.  What else is new?
> No one around the Nazis dared to show the opposite of what Goebbles spouted against the Jews.  They were of a like mind.
> If they were not, they stayed quiet. They knew it would cost their lives
> 
> After Gobbles is gone, one can tell all the lies he told about the Jews.
> 
> Today, we do not need to wait in order to know all the lies told about Jews, ZIonism, the Manadate  and Israel, and much less wait to speak about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> T_*he Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine*_ is a book written by author Edwin Black, documenting the transfer agreement ("Haavara Agreement" in Hebrew) between Zionistorganizations and Nazi Germany to transfer a number of Jews and their assets to Palestine. Shortly after Samuel Untermeyer's return to the U.S. from Germany in 1933, articles appeared on the front page of newspapers in London and New York declaring that "Judea declares war on Germany" This resulted in an effective boycott of German goods in many countries, affecting German exports significantly. The agreement was partly inspired by this boycott which appeared to threaten the Reich.[1] Controversial as it may be seen in hindsight, it marked one of the few rescues of Jews and their assets in the years leading up to the Holocaust.
> The Transfer Agreement - Wikipedia
> 
> Palestinian jews colluded with nazi's
Click to expand...


And? What was the purpose...the part You didn't want to quote:

This book documents the agreement between Nazi Germany and an organization of German Zionists in 1933 to salvage some German Jewish assets and the voluntary emigration of German Jews to Palestine before the Third Reich implemented expulsion and then extermination. The Transfer Agreement rescued some 60,000 German Jews. A sweeping, worldwide economic boycott of Germany by Jews helped spur a deal between the Nazis and Zionists.[3]

The book also documents the controversy within the Zionist movement and Jewish diaspora over the agreement, which Black shows "tore apart the Jewish world in the pre-World War II era". In particular, it describes the conflict between, on one side, German Zionists and German-descended communal leaders in the US, who argued for the agreement, and, on the other side, the mainstream Eastern European-descended American Jewish Zionist leaders (such as the American Jewish Committee and Jewish War Veterans) who opposed the agreement and argued instead for a full boycott of Nazi Germany.


You're just parroting the usual BS with no relation to the thread.


----------



## fanger

Sixties Fan said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that the propaganda mongers are still spouting that crap.  Straight from a Zionist propaganda site. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, you cannot show proof of the contrary of what is being said, so you go "PROPAGANDA".
> 
> What a lazy person.
> 
> No points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone need to show proof of the contrary when Goebbels spouted his propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying nothing again.  What else is new?
> No one around the Nazis dared to show the opposite of what Goebbles spouted against the Jews.  They were of a like mind.
> If they were not, they stayed quiet. They knew it would cost their lives
> 
> After Gobbles is gone, one can tell all the lies he told about the Jews.
> 
> Today, we do not need to wait in order to know all the lies told about Jews, ZIonism, the Manadate  and Israel, and much less wait to speak about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> T_*he Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine*_ is a book written by author Edwin Black, documenting the transfer agreement ("Haavara Agreement" in Hebrew) between Zionistorganizations and Nazi Germany to transfer a number of Jews and their assets to Palestine. Shortly after Samuel Untermeyer's return to the U.S. from Germany in 1933, articles appeared on the front page of newspapers in London and New York declaring that "Judea declares war on Germany" This resulted in an effective boycott of German goods in many countries, affecting German exports significantly. The agreement was partly inspired by this boycott which appeared to threaten the Reich.[1] Controversial as it may be seen in hindsight, it marked one of the few rescues of Jews and their assets in the years leading up to the Holocaust.
> The Transfer Agreement - Wikipedia
> 
> Palestinian jews colluded with nazi's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *. What efforts were made to save the Jews fleeing from Germany before World War II began?
> Answer:* Various organizations attempted to facilitate the emigration of the Jews (and non-Jews persecuted as Jews) from Germany. Among the most active were the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, HICEM, the Central British Fund for German Jewry, the _Reichsvertretung der Deutschen Juden_ (Reich Representation of German Jews), which represented German Jewry, and other non-Jewish groups such as the League of Nations High Commission for Refugees (Jewish and other) coming from Germany, and the American Friends Service Committee. Among the programs launched were the "Transfer Agreement" between the Jewish Agency and the German government whereby immigrants to Palestine were allowed to transfer their funds to that country in conjunction with the import of German goods to Palestine. Other efforts focused on retraining prospective emigrants in order to increase the number of those eligible for visas, since some countries barred the entry of members of certain professions. Other groups attempted to help in various phases of refugee work: selection of candidates for emigration, transportation of refugees, aid in immigrant absorption, etc. Some groups attempted to facilitate increased emigration by enlisting the aid of governments and international organizations in seeking refugee havens. The League of Nations established an agency to aid refugees but its success was extremely limited due to a lack of political power and adequate funding.
> 
> The United States and Great Britain convened a conference in 1938 at Evian, France, seeking a solution to the refugee problem. With the exception of the Dominican Republic, the nations assembled refused to change their stringent immigration regulations, which were instrumental in preventing large-scale immigration.
> 
> In 1939, the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, which had been established at the Evian Conference, initiated negotiations with leading German officials in an attempt to arrange for the relocation of a significant portion of German Jewry. However, these talks failed. Efforts were made for the illegal entry of Jewish immigrants to Palestine as early as July 1934, but were later halted until July 1938. Large-scale efforts were resumed under the _Mosad le-Aliya Bet_, Revisionist Zionists, and private parties. Attempts were also made, with some success, to facilitate the illegal entry of refugees to various countries in Latin America.
> 
> 36 Questions About the Holocaust - Simon Wiesenthal Center Multimedia Learning Center
Click to expand...

"Jewish immigrants to Palestine" how could jews emigrate to a country that you claim never existed?


----------



## fanger

rylah said:


> And? What was the purpose...the part You didn't want to quote:
> 
> This book documents the agreement between Nazi Germany and an organization of German Zionists in 1933 to salvage some German Jewish assets and the voluntary emigration of German Jews to Palestine before the Third Reich implemented expulsion and then extermination. The Transfer Agreement rescued some 60,000 German Jews. A sweeping, worldwide economic boycott of Germany by Jews helped spur a deal between the Nazis and Zionists.[3]
> 
> The book also documents the controversy within the Zionist movement and Jewish diaspora over the agreement, which Black shows "tore apart the Jewish world in the pre-World War II era". In particular, it describes the conflict between, on one side, German Zionists and German-descended communal leaders in the US, who argued for the agreement, and, on the other side, the mainstream Eastern European-descended American Jewish Zionist leaders (such as the American Jewish Committee and Jewish War Veterans) who opposed the agreement and argued instead for a full boycott of Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> You're just parroting the usual BS with no relation to the thread.


Oh so BDS is nothing new?


----------



## rylah

fanger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? What was the purpose...the part You didn't want to quote:
> 
> This book documents the agreement between Nazi Germany and an organization of German Zionists in 1933 to salvage some German Jewish assets and the voluntary emigration of German Jews to Palestine before the Third Reich implemented expulsion and then extermination. The Transfer Agreement rescued some 60,000 German Jews. A sweeping, worldwide economic boycott of Germany by Jews helped spur a deal between the Nazis and Zionists.[3]
> 
> The book also documents the controversy within the Zionist movement and Jewish diaspora over the agreement, which Black shows "tore apart the Jewish world in the pre-World War II era". In particular, it describes the conflict between, on one side, German Zionists and German-descended communal leaders in the US, who argued for the agreement, and, on the other side, the mainstream Eastern European-descended American Jewish Zionist leaders (such as the American Jewish Committee and Jewish War Veterans) who opposed the agreement and argued instead for a full boycott of Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> You're just parroting the usual BS with no relation to the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so BDS is nothing new?
Click to expand...


What's new about boycotting and discriminating against Jews on a global scale? 
*BDS boycotts Jewish buisnesses, not Israeli. *Just like they did in Nazi Germany.

So another wasted bandwith on an unrelated subject? You're on a ride today...


----------



## Sixties Fan

rylah said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? What was the purpose...the part You didn't want to quote:
> 
> This book documents the agreement between Nazi Germany and an organization of German Zionists in 1933 to salvage some German Jewish assets and the voluntary emigration of German Jews to Palestine before the Third Reich implemented expulsion and then extermination. The Transfer Agreement rescued some 60,000 German Jews. A sweeping, worldwide economic boycott of Germany by Jews helped spur a deal between the Nazis and Zionists.[3]
> 
> The book also documents the controversy within the Zionist movement and Jewish diaspora over the agreement, which Black shows "tore apart the Jewish world in the pre-World War II era". In particular, it describes the conflict between, on one side, German Zionists and German-descended communal leaders in the US, who argued for the agreement, and, on the other side, the mainstream Eastern European-descended American Jewish Zionist leaders (such as the American Jewish Committee and Jewish War Veterans) who opposed the agreement and argued instead for a full boycott of Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> You're just parroting the usual BS with no relation to the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so BDS is nothing new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's new about boycotting and discriminating against Jews on a global scale?
> *BDS boycotts Jewish buisnesses, not Israeli. *Just like they did in Nazi Germany.
> 
> So another wasted bandwith on an unrelated subject? You're on a ride today...
Click to expand...


Just as the Arabs did during the Mandate for Palestine against Jewish Businesses in the Mandate.


----------



## fanger

rylah said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? What was the purpose...the part You didn't want to quote:
> 
> This book documents the agreement between Nazi Germany and an organization of German Zionists in 1933 to salvage some German Jewish assets and the voluntary emigration of German Jews to Palestine before the Third Reich implemented expulsion and then extermination. The Transfer Agreement rescued some 60,000 German Jews. A sweeping, worldwide economic boycott of Germany by Jews helped spur a deal between the Nazis and Zionists.[3]
> 
> The book also documents the controversy within the Zionist movement and Jewish diaspora over the agreement, which Black shows "tore apart the Jewish world in the pre-World War II era". In particular, it describes the conflict between, on one side, German Zionists and German-descended communal leaders in the US, who argued for the agreement, and, on the other side, the mainstream Eastern European-descended American Jewish Zionist leaders (such as the American Jewish Committee and Jewish War Veterans) who opposed the agreement and argued instead for a full boycott of Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> You're just parroting the usual BS with no relation to the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so BDS is nothing new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's new about boycotting and discriminating against Jews on a global scale?
> *BDS boycotts Jewish buisnesses, not Israeli. *Just like they did in Nazi Germany.
> 
> So another wasted bandwith on an unrelated subject? You're on a ride today...
Click to expand...

*"BDS boycotts Jewish "buisnesses" (sic), not Israeli."*
*The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement works to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.


BDS Movement
*


----------



## rylah

fanger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? What was the purpose...the part You didn't want to quote:
> 
> This book documents the agreement between Nazi Germany and an organization of German Zionists in 1933 to salvage some German Jewish assets and the voluntary emigration of German Jews to Palestine before the Third Reich implemented expulsion and then extermination. The Transfer Agreement rescued some 60,000 German Jews. A sweeping, worldwide economic boycott of Germany by Jews helped spur a deal between the Nazis and Zionists.[3]
> 
> The book also documents the controversy within the Zionist movement and Jewish diaspora over the agreement, which Black shows "tore apart the Jewish world in the pre-World War II era". In particular, it describes the conflict between, on one side, German Zionists and German-descended communal leaders in the US, who argued for the agreement, and, on the other side, the mainstream Eastern European-descended American Jewish Zionist leaders (such as the American Jewish Committee and Jewish War Veterans) who opposed the agreement and argued instead for a full boycott of Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> You're just parroting the usual BS with no relation to the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so BDS is nothing new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's new about boycotting and discriminating against Jews on a global scale?
> *BDS boycotts Jewish buisnesses, not Israeli. *Just like they did in Nazi Germany.
> 
> So another wasted bandwith on an unrelated subject? You're on a ride today...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"BDS boycotts Jewish "buisnesses" (sic), not Israeli."
> The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement works to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.
> 
> 
> BDS Movement*
Click to expand...


That's what they say, but not what they DO, which is simply targeting the Jewish people around the world, even those who are uninvolved. Why? Because Joooooos...


And that's exactly why they get BANNED.


----------



## fanger

Joe cohen could have found some genuine BDS supporters, but non English speakers were cheaper,and he jewed it
Pro-Israel ‘lone warrior’ stares down weekly anti-Israel protests in London


----------



## Sixties Fan

The 80th Anniversary of the Two-State Solution


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The 80th Anniversary of the Two-State Solution


And 80 years later they still cannot get their stupid plan to work.

What a bunch of losers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why we must see Israeli policies as a form of settler colonialism *

The so-called ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ is not an ancient, tribal conflict, or millennia-old grudge match. Nor, as some propose, is it a tragic clash of competing nationalisms, or a cycle fuelled by religious extremism. The Zionist political project in Palestine has been, and is, a form of settler colonialism. Understanding it as such is important for three reasons.

First, it provides historical context, and at the heart of it all, is the Palestinians’ Nakba, or ‘Catastrophe’. By which, I do not mean a single, isolated historical event, or even one particular year. The Nakba began long before the formal establishment of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948 – and it has continued ever since.

The creation of a Jewish state in Palestine flew in the face of the principle of self-determination; when the first Zionist Congress was held in 1897, the population of Palestine was approximately 96 percent Arab and 4 percent Jewish. Even by 1947, Palestinian Arabs constituted a clear majority – two-thirds – of the population.

The only one way of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine was to remove its non-Jewish inhabitants. As the Jewish National Fund chair put it in 1930: “If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a greater and nobler ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of Arab fellahin.”

Why we must see Israeli policies as a form of settler colonialism


----------



## Sixties Fan

Before the eyes of the international media, British troops violently forced the ship’s passengers — most of them Holocaust survivors — onto ships back to Europe. The resulting reports helped turn public opinion in favor of the Zionist movement and against the pro-Arab British policy of limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine.

(full article and photos online)

Incredible photos of Holocaust survivors from the SS Exodus up for auction


----------



## P F Tinmore

*"State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel"*

**


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> *"State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel"*
> 
> **


You are absolutely right.

All the terrorism aimed at Jews by Al Husseini and all the Arabs he managed to fool into attacking them, led to the Jews to become even stronger about surviving and recreating their Modern Nation on their ancient Homeland of Israel.

Yes, absolutely.  The terrorism by the Arabs directed at the Jews, and the total lack of honor shown by the British for the Jews and the role the British were supposed to have in the Mandate for Palestine, led to a stronger Jewish community and a stronger Israel today.

Let the Arabs destroy themselves by thinking that terrorism is really going to get them what they want, especially  when they want always belonged to a the very indigenous people they have been attacking.

Am Israel Chai !


----------



## JoelT1

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel"*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right.
> 
> All the terrorism aimed at Jews by Al Husseini and all the Arabs he managed to fool into attacking them, led to the Jews to become even stronger about surviving and recreating their Modern Nation on their ancient Homeland of Israel.
> 
> Yes, absolutely.  The terrorism by the Arabs directed at the Jews, and the total lack of honor shown by the British for the Jews and the role the British were supposed to have in the Mandate for Palestine, led to a stronger Jewish community and a stronger Israel today.
> 
> Let the Arabs destroy themselves by thinking that terrorism is really going to get them what they want, especially  when they want always belonged to a the very indigenous people they have been attacking.
> 
> Am Israel Chai !
Click to expand...


John F Kennedy: The Miracle of Israel: Jews transform wasteland into an oasis http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=74217


----------



## JoelT1

P F Tinmore said:


> *"State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel"*
> 
> **



Palestine Center? Haha! Palestine originated as a Roman name imposed on Jews and ancient Israel, about 2000 years ago. Palestine is bogus


----------



## montelatici

Palaestina is a Latinized form of the Greek Παλαιστίνη (transliterated from Greek as Palaistíni) which in turn Herodotus got from from the Egyptian "Peleset" (transliterated from Egyptian hierogllyphics as P-r-s-t)_.   _The term is found in Egyptian writings centuries older than the establishment of Judea.


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> Palaestina is a Latinized form of the Greek Παλαιστίνη (transliterated from Greek as Palaistíni) which in turn Herodotus got from from the Egyptian "Peleset" (transliterated from Egyptian hierogllyphics as P-r-s-t)_.   _The term is found in Egyptian writings centuries older than the establishment of Judea.



Peleset, Peleshet, Palaistine, Palaestina etc all referred to a people not a land, the Philistines, non-indigenous, non-Semitic invaders from the Aegean who became extinct about 2500 years ago

First time palestine referred to a land was when the Romans imposed the name palaestina on ancient Israel in retribution for the Jewish Revolt; Philistines were ancient enemies of the Israelites


----------



## Sixties Fan

100 Years Ago, a Jewish Heroine Became an Early Martyr for Human Rights


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Jews Will Have to Wait


----------



## Sixties Fan

[Why do some British people themselves now call to boycott Israel and invalidate the Balfour Declaration?  Have they no honor, no shame? No sense of history and what the right thing to do is?  ]

That said the original League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine included what is now Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza for Jewish settlement. Then in 1922 Jordan was hived off as an Arab-Palestinian state with the intent that Jewish settlement would be restricted to what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. A future Israel, therefore, lost some three-quarters of its potential land mass in 1922.

Nevertheless, this significantly reduced land mass set aside for future Jewish settlement became part of international law via the League of Nations. Macintyre chooses to ignore this.

Macintyre further ignores ALL the various attempts to reduce this already reduced land mass for Jewish settlement even further, for example via the Peel Commission which in 1937 offered the remaing local Arab population 80% of this reduced land mass.

The Jewish leadership accepted its 20% but the Arab leaders rejected their 80%!

(full article online)

Guardian’s Donald Macintyre calls for boycott in light of Balfour Declaration centenary.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Palestinian Arabs didn't like the idea that the "E.Y." were on the stamps. They countered that they wanted their own national name on the stamps as well in Arabic if the Jews were allowed to place the "E.Y" after their name.

And the name they wanted to print was not "Palestine."

They wanted the stamps to say ""Suria El Jenobia"  -Southern Syria!

This was all recorded in the Palestine Bulletin of October 13, 1925.
(vide online)

(full article, stamps online)

Anti-Israel "Balfour Project" cant quite find "Palestine" stamps that don't make them look stupid ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## JoelT1

Sixties Fan said:


> Palestinian Arabs didn't like the idea that the "E.Y." were on the stamps. They countered that they wanted their own national name on the stamps as well in Arabic if the Jews were allowed to place the "E.Y" after their name.
> 
> And the name they wanted to print was not "Palestine."
> 
> They wanted the stamps to say ""Suria El Jenobia"  -Southern Syria!
> 
> This was all recorded in the Palestine Bulletin of October 13, 1925.
> (vide online)
> 
> (full article, stamps online)
> 
> Anti-Israel "Balfour Project" cant quite find "Palestine" stamps that don't make them look stupid ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News



Arabs historically called Syria “Sham” “land to the left” Palestine was a Roman Latin name. No p in Arabic


----------



## JoelT1

P F Tinmore said:


> *"State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel"*
> 
> **



Barack Obama: Democratic Israel is the future of the world!


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Dying to Forget: Oil, Power, Palestine, and the Foundations of U.S. Policy in the Middle East*

**


----------



## JoelT1

P F Tinmore said:


> *Dying to Forget: Oil, Power, Palestine, and the Foundations of U.S. Policy in the Middle East*
> 
> **



Palestine: Roman name for ancient Israel. Palestine never existed


----------



## Sixties Fan

1917 and the Battle of Beersheba


----------



## Sixties Fan

Gutsy warriors: Americans who joined Israel's fight for its life


----------



## JoelT1

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 80th Anniversary of the Two-State Solution
> 
> 
> 
> And 80 years later they still cannot get their stupid plan to work.
> 
> What a bunch of losers.
Click to expand...


Google Chairman: Israel’s genius transforming the world The Next Google Could Come From Israel


----------



## JoelT1

JoelT1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 80th Anniversary of the Two-State Solution
> 
> 
> 
> And 80 years later they still cannot get their stupid plan to work.
> 
> What a bunch of losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google Chairman: Israel’s genius transforming the world The Next Google Could Come From Israel
Click to expand...


Warren Buffett: Israel is a major factor in commerce and the world, smaller replica of the US


----------



## JoelT1

JoelT1 said:


> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 80th Anniversary of the Two-State Solution
> 
> 
> 
> And 80 years later they still cannot get their stupid plan to work.
> 
> What a bunch of losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google Chairman: Israel’s genius transforming the world The Next Google Could Come From Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett: Israel is a major factor in commerce and the world, smaller replica of the US
Click to expand...


Israel's genius transforms New York


----------



## P F Tinmore

JoelT1 said:


> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 80th Anniversary of the Two-State Solution
> 
> 
> 
> And 80 years later they still cannot get their stupid plan to work.
> 
> What a bunch of losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google Chairman: Israel’s genius transforming the world The Next Google Could Come From Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Warren Buffett: Israel is a major factor in commerce and the world, smaller replica of the US
Click to expand...

Off topic, The "Brand Israel" thread is here: Israel: Helping To Make A Better World


----------



## Sixties Fan

_*On July 22, 1946, the Irgun resistance organization blew up a section of the King David Hotel, killing 91 British, Arabs and Jews.  The Library of Congress - Matson collection includes several pictures of the bombing's aftermath. *


Those photographs pretty much marked the end of the Matson Photo Service's  65 years in Jerusalem.  According to the Library, "In 1946, in the face of increasing violence in Palestine, the Matsons left Jerusalem for Southern California."  




King David Hotel 1946
The attack still raises the question of the involvement of the Jewish underground in terrorism.  

The following appeared in Myths and Facts, 1989, written by the publisher of Israel Daily Picture.


The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division.  Two events led the Irgun commanders to choose the British military headquarters as a legitimate target. On June 29, 1946, British troops invaded the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem and confiscated large quantities of documents.  Simultaneously, over 2,500 Jewish leaders from all over Palestine were placed under arrest.  Not only were the documents of crucial importance to the Jewish liberation movement, but papers on Jewish agents in Arab countries were also confiscated, endangering vital intelligence activities.  The information was taken to the King David Hotel.   _




King David Hotel 1946

O_ne week later, Palestinian Jewish anger against the British and their blockade of Palestine grew.  Word arrived of the massacre of 40 Jews in a pogrom in Poland; 40 Jews who might have been saved had the doors to Palestine been opened for the survivors of Hitler's concentration camps.
On July 22, the Irgun planted bombs in the basement of the hotel. Several calls were placed warning the British to evacuate. They refused.  For decades the British denied that they had been warned. In 1979, however a member of the British parliament introduced evidence that the Irgun had indeed issued the warning.  He offered the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters.  The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.

Picture a Day - The Holy Land Revealed_


----------



## JoelT1

Ancient Israel existed long before the UN and Britain.

Houses of Ancient Israel Houses of Ancient Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
ByJacob F Suslovichon September 5, 2017
Format: Paperback
This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.

(more reviews by those who know history online)

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
> ByJacob F Suslovichon September 5, 2017
> Format: Paperback
> This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.
> 
> (more reviews by those who know history online)
> 
> Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel
Click to expand...

The information must be viewed in the lens of the Zionist settler colonial project.


----------



## JoelT1

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
> ByJacob F Suslovichon September 5, 2017
> Format: Paperback
> This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.
> 
> (more reviews by those who know history online)
> 
> Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The information must be viewed in the lens of the Zionist settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


Zionist Jesus King of Israel in the Bible


----------



## JoelT1

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
> ByJacob F Suslovichon September 5, 2017
> Format: Paperback
> This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.
> 
> (more reviews by those who know history online)
> 
> Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The information must be viewed in the lens of the Zionist settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


Get this: Arabs’ own Zionist Koran decrees Israel to Children of Israel. Palestine isn’t mentioned as it never existed


----------



## JoelT1

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
> ByJacob F Suslovichon September 5, 2017
> Format: Paperback
> This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.
> 
> (more reviews by those who know history online)
> 
> Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The information must be viewed in the lens of the Zionist settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


Jews lived in ancient Israel thousands of years before the UN and Britain existed  Gallery: WHC 2015 – Beth She’arim Necropolis - a Landmark of Jewish Revival (Israel)


----------



## P F Tinmore

*2016 Palestine Annual Conference - Panel 1: Legacies of the British Mandate*

**


----------



## Hollie




----------



## JoelT1

Israel existed thousands of years before the UN and Britain


----------



## Sixties Fan

A Zionist Leader's Legacy, Reconstructed


----------



## Sixties Fan

Daphne Anson: David Singer: Britain Backs Jordan and Israel to End the Arab-Jewish Conflict


----------



## JoelT1

Britain called the British Mandate “palestine” after WW1 which served as the platform for Israeli statehood. British palestine ceased to exist in 1948.

Britain obtained the name palestine from an old Roman name first imposed on Jews and ancient Israel, palaestina. Palestine was merely the European-anglicized form of the Latin word palaestina.

Thus, palestine is a non-indigenous name by non-indigenous Western occupiers of Jews’ historical land and the indigenous Jewish People. The name palestine was and is historically illegitimate ⤵️


----------



## montelatici

No, Palaestina is the latinized version of the Greek
Παλαιστίνη (roughly Palaistini in the latin alphabet) which Herodotus (circa 450 bc) transliterated from the ancient Egyptian (Hieroglyphic) name for the area, Peleset, used as early as 3,000 BC. Neither the ancient Jews or the European Jews are indigenous to the area. They were both invaders.


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> No, Palaestina is the latinized version of the Greek
> Παλαιστίνη (roughly Palaistini in the latin alphabet) which Herodotus (circa 450 bc) transliterated from the ancient Egyptian (Hieroglyphic) name for the area, Peleset, used as early as 3,000 BC. Neither the ancient Jews or the European Jews are indigenous to the area. They were both invaders.



Jesus, a devout Jew, and his Jewish Apostles and disciples, were indigenous to Israel. Jesus is called King of Israel and King of the Jews in the Bible. The Jewish People predated Jesus by thousands of years. Jewish Bible dates back to 1000 BCE, 1000 years before Jesus; Dead Sea Scrolls date back 300 years before Jesus

Educate yourself.


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> No, Palaestina is the latinized version of the Greek
> Παλαιστίνη (roughly Palaistini in the latin alphabet) which Herodotus (circa 450 bc) transliterated from the ancient Egyptian (Hieroglyphic) name for the area, Peleset, used as early as 3,000 BC. Neither the ancient Jews or the European Jews are indigenous to the area. They were both invaders.



Peleset referred to Philistines, non-indigenous, non-Semitic invaders from the Aegean to the coast of ancient Israel.

Roman Empire first imposed the name palaestina on a land, ancient Israel, later anglicized to palestine by European Christians

Now you know


----------



## Sixties Fan

Zionism during World War 1 I THE GREAT WAR Special


----------



## Sixties Fan

Battle of Beersheba - Canadian Frustration - Balfour Declaration I THE GREAT WAR Week 171


----------



## thetor

JoelT1 said:


> Israel existed thousands of years before the UN and Britain


And the Canaanites before the Israelites so your point is???????


----------



## JoelT1

thetor said:


> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel existed thousands of years before the UN and Britain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Canaanites before the Israelites so your point is???????
Click to expand...


Jews were Canaanites. Read a history book


----------



## montelatici

You need to read a history book.  The Jews were invaders and the descendants of the indigenous Canaanites are still around in Lebanon and by extension Palestine.

“ ....a new genetic study has found that the Canaanites actually managed to survive this purge of their traditional homeland, passing on their DNA over the centuries to their numerous descendants in modern-day Lebanon.....We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age.”

Scientists just disproved a historical event described in the Bible


----------



## Shusha

You guys keep trying to use these genetic studies to claim things that the studies themselves don't actually claim.


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> You need to read a history book.  The Jews were invaders and the descendants of the indigenous Canaanites are still around in Lebanon and by extension Palestine.
> 
> “ ....a new genetic study has found that the Canaanites actually managed to survive this purge of their traditional homeland, passing on their DNA over the centuries to their numerous descendants in modern-day Lebanon.....We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age.”
> 
> Scientists just disproved a historical event described in the Bible



You’re ignorant. 

Jews were Canaanites Read, learn Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel


----------



## montelatici

JoelT1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read a history book.  The Jews were invaders and the descendants of the indigenous Canaanites are still around in Lebanon and by extension Palestine.
> 
> “ ....a new genetic study has found that the Canaanites actually managed to survive this purge of their traditional homeland, passing on their DNA over the centuries to their numerous descendants in modern-day Lebanon.....We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age.”
> 
> Scientists just disproved a historical event described in the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re ignorant.
> 
> Jews were Canaanites Read, learn Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel
Click to expand...


Genetics trump all your bullshit, you ignorant piece of crap.


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read a history book.  The Jews were invaders and the descendants of the indigenous Canaanites are still around in Lebanon and by extension Palestine.
> 
> “ ....a new genetic study has found that the Canaanites actually managed to survive this purge of their traditional homeland, passing on their DNA over the centuries to their numerous descendants in modern-day Lebanon.....We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age.”
> 
> Scientists just disproved a historical event described in the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re ignorant.
> 
> Jews were Canaanites Read, learn Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genetics trump all your bullshit, you ignorant piece of crap.
Click to expand...


Jews were Canaanites Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel

You lost the debate. Run along


----------



## montelatici

JoelT1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read a history book.  The Jews were invaders and the descendants of the indigenous Canaanites are still around in Lebanon and by extension Palestine.
> 
> “ ....a new genetic study has found that the Canaanites actually managed to survive this purge of their traditional homeland, passing on their DNA over the centuries to their numerous descendants in modern-day Lebanon.....We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age.”
> 
> Scientists just disproved a historical event described in the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re ignorant.
> 
> Jews were Canaanites Read, learn Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genetics trump all your bullshit, you ignorant piece of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews were Canaanites Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel
> 
> You lost the debate. Run along
Click to expand...


You lost when DNA proved your bullshit fake.  Run along and play with the other children.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read a history book.  The Jews were invaders and the descendants of the indigenous Canaanites are still around in Lebanon and by extension Palestine.
> 
> “ ....a new genetic study has found that the Canaanites actually managed to survive this purge of their traditional homeland, passing on their DNA over the centuries to their numerous descendants in modern-day Lebanon.....We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age.”
> 
> Scientists just disproved a historical event described in the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re ignorant.
> 
> Jews were Canaanites Read, learn Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genetics trump all your bullshit, you ignorant piece of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews were Canaanites Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel
> 
> You lost the debate. Run along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost when DNA proved your bullshit fake.  Run along and play with the other children.
Click to expand...


Funny, because  usually all Your links contradict what You say.
Here's another one of those links You liked to use, but it contradicts You as well.
Reference Populations - Geno 2.0 Next Generation

Lebanese people are 44% Arabian, 14% Jews and... :





*
But here is my question*: Is DNA profiling an exclusive pre-condition upon which people derive their rights?


----------



## JoelT1

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoelT1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read a history book.  The Jews were invaders and the descendants of the indigenous Canaanites are still around in Lebanon and by extension Palestine.
> 
> “ ....a new genetic study has found that the Canaanites actually managed to survive this purge of their traditional homeland, passing on their DNA over the centuries to their numerous descendants in modern-day Lebanon.....We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age.”
> 
> Scientists just disproved a historical event described in the Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re ignorant.
> 
> Jews were Canaanites Read, learn Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genetics trump all your bullshit, you ignorant piece of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews were Canaanites Archeologists Unearth 'Golden Calf' in Israel
> 
> You lost the debate. Run along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost when DNA proved your bullshit fake.  Run along and play with the other children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, because  usually all Your links contradict what You say.
> Here's another one of those links You liked to use, but it contradicts You as well.
> Reference Populations - Geno 2.0 Next Generation
> 
> Lebanese people are 44% Arabian, 14% Jews and... :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> But here is my question*: Is DNA profiling an exclusive pre-condition upon which people derive their rights?
Click to expand...


Lebanon was created by France after WW1. Syria was created by France after WW1. Iraq & Jordan were created by Britain after WW1. Palestine was created by Britain after WW1

Israel, created by Jews, dates back to antiquity, 3000+ years


----------



## Sixties Fan

Later Amidror said that it was always clear that NILI was significant as the first intelligence agency of the Jews in the Land of Israel. But until now it was not clear how the British Empire regarded the organization. Amidror, relying on research by his colleague Ephraim Halevy, a former head of the Mossad, said that documents from British espionage agency MI6 explicitly mention NILI as an organization that contributed to the intelligence capabilities of the British Mandate and to its capability to conquer Palestinian from Ottoman rule.

It furthermore arises that when the Balfour Declaration was worded, a draft of the declaration was sent to Aharonson so that he could say what he thought of it. "Such a gesture surely testifies to good relations and relations of honor between the British intelligence and NILI in general, and Aharon Aharonson in particular," Amidror said.

The NILI organization was a highly important source of intelligence for the State of Israel, and later became a significant tool for the establishment of the Jewish State. Amidror said: "It is important to understand, our military, as strong as it may be, serves a small country with relatively few resources, but the intelligence apparatus this country has is among the best around. Good intelligence enables us to choose and focus and most important and significant points for the country's resilience and thus to utilize the limited resources the military has in the best possible way."

(full article online)

Just how important was Jewish underground in WWI?


----------



## Sixties Fan

WATCH: Harvard’s Prof. Alan Dershowitz Debunks Challenges to Israel’s Legitimacy


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## JoelT1

Palestine: Roman name for Jews’ land


----------



## JoelT1

“For Arabs, there was no country called palestine”


----------



## Sixties Fan

Were the same vote held today, the 193 General Assembly members would likely vote, perhaps overwhelmingly, against Jewish statehood. The Arab and Muslim states would vote “nay”—as they did uniformly in 1947—for reasons of ideology. But many others would follow suit out of self-interest and a desire not to annoy the world’s Arabs and Muslims—because the Arab and Muslim worlds offer giant actual and potential markets for goods and services, because much of the world’s oil is in their grip, because they sit astride international air, land, and sea routes, because of Arab-Muslim clout in international forums, and because of the presence of Arab and/or Muslim minorities in the midst of majority non-Arab and non-Muslim countries.

But the truth is that back in 1947, too, most of the world’s states had good, concrete reasons to vote with the Arabs. Then, too, there were potential markets, communications routes, oil wells, Muslim minorities—and there were big powers like France, Britain, and the U.S. that had or hoped to establish military bases in Muslim lands. Given the cold-war background, the powers, including the U.S. and the USSR, had good reason to rally or keep the Arabs and Muslims onside. As the Indian prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, wrote to Albert Einstein on July 11, 1947, explaining by implication why India with its large Muslim minority was going to vote “nay”: “national policies are unfortunately essentially selfish policies. Each country thinks of its own interest first.”

(full article online)

The UN Partition Vote in November 1947 Was Important, but Not  Crucial


----------



## JoelT1

Israel “created” in 1948? Ancient history says otherwise


----------



## Sixties Fan

This entire story, especially the Sultan's supposed response to Herzl, is a complete myth.

Herzl did meet the Sultan, in May 1901. And I can find no record of anything close to what the Sultan supposedly said. The earliest mention I can find of this story is from a message board in 2000.

I cannot find a single book that mentions this story.

The American Jewish Yearbook at the time summarized Herzl's meeting this way:

-------------------
A number of reasons are given for the failure of the negotiations, but the Sultan's undying love for Palestine is not one of them..

(full article online)

Did the Sultan tell Herzl that he would rather die than give Palestine to Jews? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## JoelT1

Israel created in 1948? Long, long before

Ancient shekel of Israel Silver shekel of the First Jewish Revolt from Rome - Google Arts & Culture


----------



## Sixties Fan

We know it was inspired by the sacrifice of British, Australian, New Zealand, Indian and Palestinian Jewish fighters.

The liberation of Jerusalem on December 11, 1917, exactly a century ago, was the final act in a triumvirate of significant historic events that year, the other two being the Balfour Declaration and the victory at the Battle of Beersheva. During this auspicious, short period, Christian Zionist politicians, generals, soldiers and Jewish spies in Palestine forced open the door that paved the way for the restoration of the land of Israel for the Jewish people.

That door began to close by 1919 when Jew-hating British administrators, brought up to Jerusalem from Egypt, reneged on their duty to carry out orders. In a treasonable act of defiance and antisemitism, they ignored official British policy.

Gen. Money, the chief administrator, ordered that “The walled city of Jerusalem is placed out of orders to all Jewish soldiers from the 14th to the 22nd April inclusive.”

It was no coincidence that this period was the pilgrim festival of Passover.

This outraged Col. John Patterson, the commanding officer of the Jewish Legion, who wrote, “I cannot conceive a greater act of provocation to Jewish soldiers, or a greater insult. Not since the days of Emperor Hadrian had such a humiliating decree been issued.”

The Balfour Declaration stipulated that His Majesty’s Government would use its “best endeavors to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

(full article online)

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/1917-and-the-liberation-of-Jerusalem-514659


----------



## JoelT1

Israel created in 1948? Much, much earlier Silver shekel of the Second Jewish Revolt from Rome - Google Arts & Culture


----------



## Sixties Fan

Dore Gold: Is It True the UN Created Israel? 70 Years since UN General Assembly Resolution 181
It is often incorrectly asserted that the United Nations created the State of Israel by means of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, what is also known as the Partition Plan, which was adopted on November 29, 1947, 70 years ago. That is completely untrue.

UN Resolution 181 called explicitly for an independent Jewish state alongside of an Arab state and provided international legitimacy for the Jewish claim to statehood. It was a morally significant action, but like all UN General Assembly resolutions, it was not legally binding.

What established Israel was not the action of the UN. What actually established Israel was the Declaration of Independence by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, on May 15, 1948. To this day, what establishes states are not actions in the UN, despite what Mahmoud Abbas might hope.

When I served as Israel's ambassador to the UN, a campaign began which called for reviving Resolution 181, led by the Palestinian UN Observer, Nasser al-Qudwa. At the time, Israeli Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon said to me, "Go back to Ben-Gurion's speech in the Knesset from December 1949."

When Arab armies converged on the nascent State of Israel, put Jerusalem under siege, and bombarded the Old City with artillery, the UN did nothing. As Ben-Gurion told the Israeli Knesset in December 1949, "The UN didn't lift a finger."

Ben-Gurion declared, "We cannot regard the decision of the 29th of November 1947 as being possessed of any further moral force since the UN did not succeed in implementing its own decisions." Eight days later he moved the capital of Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem just as the Jewish state was being reborn.

Is It True the UN Created Israel? Seventy years since UN General Assembly Resolution 181


----------



## JoelT1

Israel created in 1948? Much, much, earlier Huqoq Excavation Project


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Dore Gold: Is It True the UN Created Israel? 70 Years since UN General Assembly Resolution 181
> It is often incorrectly asserted that the United Nations created the State of Israel by means of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, what is also known as the Partition Plan, which was adopted on November 29, 1947, 70 years ago. That is completely untrue.
> 
> UN Resolution 181 called explicitly for an independent Jewish state alongside of an Arab state and provided international legitimacy for the Jewish claim to statehood. It was a morally significant action, but like all UN General Assembly resolutions, it was not legally binding.
> 
> What established Israel was not the action of the UN. What actually established Israel was the Declaration of Independence by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, on May 15, 1948. To this day, what establishes states are not actions in the UN, despite what Mahmoud Abbas might hope.
> 
> When I served as Israel's ambassador to the UN, a campaign began which called for reviving Resolution 181, led by the Palestinian UN Observer, Nasser al-Qudwa. At the time, Israeli Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon said to me, "Go back to Ben-Gurion's speech in the Knesset from December 1949."
> 
> When Arab armies converged on the nascent State of Israel, put Jerusalem under siege, and bombarded the Old City with artillery, the UN did nothing. As Ben-Gurion told the Israeli Knesset in December 1949, "The UN didn't lift a finger."
> 
> Ben-Gurion declared, "We cannot regard the decision of the 29th of November 1947 as being possessed of any further moral force since the UN did not succeed in implementing its own decisions." Eight days later he moved the capital of Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem just as the Jewish state was being reborn.
> 
> Is It True the UN Created Israel? Seventy years since UN General Assembly Resolution 181


Indeed, I have been saying for years that resolution181 was not implemented and has no meaning.


----------



## JoelT1

Israel existed long, long before the UN and Britain


----------



## Sixties Fan

*EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Two recent books make an important contribution to the study of the Palestinian Nakba. Dr. Adel Manna explores the 1948 fall of the Galilee, based on memories of local Arab inhabitants; while Professor Eliezer Tauber debunks the myth of the Deir Yassin massacre, which became one of the Nakba’s foundational events as early as 1948. These studies pave the road to reassessing the Palestinian tragedy within the conflict’s past, present, and future wider context: Jewish localities were occupied by Arabs in the 1948 war, war crimes were perpetrated against Jews by Arabs, and present-day Palestinian schoolbooks continue to incite the perpetration of war crimes against Jews. *

Two important Hebrew-language books were published recently: Deir Yassin: The End of the Myth by Eliezer Tauber (Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir 2017), and Nakba and Survival: The Story of the Palestinians Who Remained in Haifa and the Galilee, 1948-1956 by Adel Manna (Van Leer Institute Press, Hakibbutz Hameuhad Publishing House 2017). The value of these books emanates from their comprehensive presentation of data and facts hitherto not discussed.

(full article online)

Reflections on Deir Yassin, the Nakba, and War Crimes


----------



## JoelT1

Israel existed long, long before the UN and Britain Silver shekel of the Second Jewish Revolt, struck over a denarius of the Emperor Hadrian – Smarthistory



 Israe


----------



## montelatici

BETHLEHEM, West Bank (Reuters) - British street artist Banksy has offered a royal “apology” engraved on Israel’s barrier in the occupied West Bank for Britain’s endorsement a century ago of the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

At West Bank tea party, artist Banksy offers royal 'apology' for Balfour Declaration


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> BETHLEHEM, West Bank (Reuters) - British street artist Banksy has offered a royal “apology” engraved on Israel’s barrier in the occupied West Bank for Britain’s endorsement a century ago of the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
> 
> At West Bank tea party, artist Banksy offers royal 'apology' for Balfour Declaration



No kidding, a street artist? Did he paint some graffiti?


----------



## JoelT1

montelatici said:


> BETHLEHEM, West Bank (Reuters) - British street artist Banksy has offered a royal “apology” engraved on Israel’s barrier in the occupied West Bank for Britain’s endorsement a century ago of the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
> 
> At West Bank tea party, artist Banksy offers royal 'apology' for Balfour Declaration



Birdbrain: Correct historical names of the land are Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish land dating back to Jesus’ time and earlier


----------



## montelatici

Dimwit:  Who cares?


----------



## JoelT1

Israel existed long before the UN and Britain


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ilan Pappe - How the Mainstream Media Depicts the Conflict in Israel and Palestine*

**


----------



## JoelT1

*Israel existed long, long before the UN and Britain*


----------



## Sixties Fan

'Historic UN partition vote on Israel against international law'


----------



## Sixties Fan

Responding to the Palestinian-initiated session, Ambassador Danon said, “Today we mark the anniversary of the United Nations vote in 1947. For Israel it was a moment that turned an age-old dream of self-determination into a real-life miracle. For the Palestinians it resulted in a choice to turn towards violence and lasting hatred.”

(full article online)

'The Palestinians chose to say yes to Hamas'


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> 'Historic UN partition vote on Israel against international law'



I agree with this article.  This is correct.  It is, in fact, the Arabs who have taken land by force of arms.


----------



## Sixties Fan

https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/to-get-a-state-palestinians-should-do-what-the-zionists-did/


----------



## Sixties Fan

70 Years: UN Partition Day


----------



## Sixties Fan

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ur...n-plan-My-father-would-have-been-proud-515448


----------



## Sixties Fan

http://www.israelhayom.com/2017/12/01/from-ottoman-darkness-to-british-light/


----------



## jamesduncan

25And you, *profane wicked prince of Israel*, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
26Thus says the Lord GOD; Remove the turban, and take off the crown: this shall not remain the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
27I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he comes whose right it is; and I will give it to him.
31And I will pour out my indignation upon you, I will blow against you in the fire of my wrath, and deliver you into the hand of brutal men, skilful to destroy.
32You shall be for fuel to the fire; your blood shall be in the midst of the land; you shall be no more remembered: for I the LORD have spoken it.

*According to a 2002 study by the *Jewish Agency*, "the number of Jews in the world is declining at an average of 50,000 per year."*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population

BTW I did not wright the above. 

I am just a messenger -


----------



## Sixties Fan

jamesduncan said:


> 25And you, *profane wicked prince of Israel*, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,
> 26Thus says the Lord GOD; Remove the turban, and take off the crown: this shall not remain the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
> 27I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he comes whose right it is; and I will give it to him.
> 31And I will pour out my indignation upon you, I will blow against you in the fire of my wrath, and deliver you into the hand of brutal men, skilful to destroy.
> 32You shall be for fuel to the fire; your blood shall be in the midst of the land; you shall be no more remembered: for I the LORD have spoken it.
> 
> *According to a 2002 study by the *Jewish Agency*, "the number of Jews in the world is declining at an average of 50,000 per year."*
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population
> 
> BTW I did not wright the above.
> 
> I am just a messenger -


You are off topic.  This is not the religion forum, and this thread does not discuss the Jewish population in the world.

They must all be declining from the "world" towards Israel.

Am Israel Chai


----------



## jamesduncan

Sixties Fan said:


> You are off topic.  This is not the religion forum, and this thread does not discuss the Jewish population in the world..,.,..



I disagree. The thread topic is--
_"The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate"_

They chose to call their new country "Israel" which includes the baggage attached to it
-


----------



## Sixties Fan

jamesduncan said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are off topic.  This is not the religion forum, and this thread does not discuss the Jewish population in the world..,.,..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. The thread topic is--
> _"The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate"_
> 
> They chose to call their new country "Israel" which includes the baggage attached to it
> -
Click to expand...

What did you want them to call it?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Past experience tends to repeat itself, creating the most glittering writing on the wall. However, too often it is overlooked by Western policy-makers, who frequently sacrifice long-term interests, strategic complexity and reality-based hope on the altar of short-term convenience, oversimplification and wishful-thinking.


The November 29, 1947 Partition Plan produced a series of long-term geo-strategic lessons – relevant to the 2017 national security of Israel and the US – which have been largely ignored, although they have recurred and have been reaffirmed, systematically, since 1947.

(full article online)

The Ettinger Report - Critical lessons of the 1947 Partition Plan


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Past experience tends to repeat itself, creating the most glittering writing on the wall. However, too often it is overlooked by Western policy-makers, who frequently sacrifice long-term interests, strategic complexity and reality-based hope on the altar of short-term convenience, oversimplification and wishful-thinking.
> 
> 
> The November 29, 1947 Partition Plan produced a series of long-term geo-strategic lessons – relevant to the 2017 national security of Israel and the US – which have been largely ignored, although they have recurred and have been reaffirmed, systematically, since 1947.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The Ettinger Report - Critical lessons of the 1947 Partition Plan


Nowhere did he mention that it was never implemented.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Past experience tends to repeat itself, creating the most glittering writing on the wall. However, too often it is overlooked by Western policy-makers, who frequently sacrifice long-term interests, strategic complexity and reality-based hope on the altar of short-term convenience, oversimplification and wishful-thinking.
> 
> 
> The November 29, 1947 Partition Plan produced a series of long-term geo-strategic lessons – relevant to the 2017 national security of Israel and the US – which have been largely ignored, although they have recurred and have been reaffirmed, systematically, since 1947.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The Ettinger Report - Critical lessons of the 1947 Partition Plan
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere did he mention that it was never implemented.
Click to expand...

If it was never implemented it is because the Arabs did not want a Jewish State on Muslim conquered land, ancient Jewish homeland or not.

If it was never implemented it is because the Arabs chose to declare war on the Jews and the new Jewish State instead of agreeing to the partition, which then would have been implemented.

IF it was not implemented, it is because the Arabs rejected it and it became null and void, with only the Jews being ready to have their State, which was accepted by many countries.

Israel became a State IN SPITE of the endless Arab rejections to partition the land, which should have NEVER have been brought up to be partitioned to begin with.

Israel is a sovereign state.  The Arabs have 99% of the lost Ottoman Empire.

STOP the bellyaching for the sake of Islam.

Poor, poor Islam, Poor Christianity
Both tried everything they could to keep the Jews from getting away from under their boots.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Past experience tends to repeat itself, creating the most glittering writing on the wall. However, too often it is overlooked by Western policy-makers, who frequently sacrifice long-term interests, strategic complexity and reality-based hope on the altar of short-term convenience, oversimplification and wishful-thinking.
> 
> 
> The November 29, 1947 Partition Plan produced a series of long-term geo-strategic lessons – relevant to the 2017 national security of Israel and the US – which have been largely ignored, although they have recurred and have been reaffirmed, systematically, since 1947.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The Ettinger Report - Critical lessons of the 1947 Partition Plan
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere did he mention that it was never implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was never implemented it is because the Arabs did not want a Jewish State on Muslim conquered land, ancient Jewish homeland or not.
> 
> If it was never implemented it is because the Arabs chose to declare war on the Jews and the new Jewish State instead of agreeing to the partition, which then would have been implemented.
> 
> IF it was not implemented, it is because the Arabs rejected it and it became null and void, with only the Jews being ready to have their State, which was accepted by many countries.
> 
> Israel became a State IN SPITE of the endless Arab rejections to partition the land, which should have NEVER have been brought up to be partitioned to begin with.
> 
> Israel is a sovereign state.  The Arabs have 99% of the lost Ottoman Empire.
> 
> STOP the bellyaching for the sake of Islam.
> 
> Poor, poor Islam, Poor Christianity
> Both tried everything they could to keep the Jews from getting away from under their boots.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan. It was only a non binding recommendation anyway.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Past experience tends to repeat itself, creating the most glittering writing on the wall. However, too often it is overlooked by Western policy-makers, who frequently sacrifice long-term interests, strategic complexity and reality-based hope on the altar of short-term convenience, oversimplification and wishful-thinking.
> 
> 
> The November 29, 1947 Partition Plan produced a series of long-term geo-strategic lessons – relevant to the 2017 national security of Israel and the US – which have been largely ignored, although they have recurred and have been reaffirmed, systematically, since 1947.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The Ettinger Report - Critical lessons of the 1947 Partition Plan
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere did he mention that it was never implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was never implemented it is because the Arabs did not want a Jewish State on Muslim conquered land, ancient Jewish homeland or not.
> 
> If it was never implemented it is because the Arabs chose to declare war on the Jews and the new Jewish State instead of agreeing to the partition, which then would have been implemented.
> 
> IF it was not implemented, it is because the Arabs rejected it and it became null and void, with only the Jews being ready to have their State, which was accepted by many countries.
> 
> Israel became a State IN SPITE of the endless Arab rejections to partition the land, which should have NEVER have been brought up to be partitioned to begin with.
> 
> Israel is a sovereign state.  The Arabs have 99% of the lost Ottoman Empire.
> 
> STOP the bellyaching for the sake of Islam.
> 
> Poor, poor Islam, Poor Christianity
> Both tried everything they could to keep the Jews from getting away from under their boots.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians had the right to reject the plan. It was only a non binding recommendation anyway.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming.
The Palestinian Jews accepted it.
The Palestinian Muslims rejected it.

Their loss.  Still and always.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration": "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration": "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On


From your link:
I assure you of my sympathy for the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine by means of well-organized immigration and colonization.​
Indeed, Israel is a settler colonial project.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration": "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> I assure you of my sympathy for the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine by means of well-organized immigration and colonization.​
> Indeed, Israel is a settler colonial project.
Click to expand...

Whichever there reason he used that word, he did acknowledge that the Jews were indigenous to Palestine:

"
In a meeting in Istanbul on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha gave Leopold Perlmutter, a German Jewish businessman and a personal acquaintance, an official statement on behalf of the Ottoman government. Formulated during a month-long negotiation with a 16-member Jewish delegation, headed by Perlmutter and comprising Zionists and non-Zionists from Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire,[3]* the statement acknowledged the Jewish right to national and religious revival in Palestine.* "I am happy to be able to tell you that my negotiations with delegates of several Jewish organizations some time ago have led to a real result," Talaat wrote. The statement continued:

The Council of Ministers has just decided, following my statements to the Jewish delegation, to lift all restrictive measures on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine.* Strict orders have been given to the relevant authorities to ensure a benevolent treatment of the Jewish nation in Palestine based on complete equality with the other elements of the population.*

Regarding my invitation to several Jewish organizations,* I declare once again, as I already did to the Jewish delegation, my sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and settlement, for I am convinced of the importance and benefits of the settlement of Jews in Palestine for the Ottoman Empire*. I am willing to put this work under the high protection of the Ottoman Empire, and to promote it by all means that are compatible with the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population. It is my solid conviction that the special commission, which will be appointed to lay out a detailed project for this work, shall shortly complete its work. I will be happy to see the delegation here again thereafter to continue the conversations.[4]
----------------------
--------------------

Arabs and Turks in those days did not deny the connection the Jews had to the Land of Israel/Palestine.

That only happened after Arabs like Husseini, in their Jihad war against the Jews, lost the war of 1948 and the one in 1967.

It is ONLY after those lost wars that Arabs devised the idea of saying that the Ashkenazi were converts to Judaism, and that Jews had no connection to the Temple Mount, or the Patriarch's Cave, etc.

Yeah, Tin, live and learn, and stop disrespecting the Jewish People because of your Christian beliefs that they should never have any rights.

Jews have rights.  They are not Dhimmis to fools like you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration": "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> I assure you of my sympathy for the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine by means of well-organized immigration and colonization.​
> Indeed, Israel is a settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whichever there reason he used that word, he did acknowledge that the Jews were indigenous to Palestine:
> 
> "
> In a meeting in Istanbul on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha gave Leopold Perlmutter, a German Jewish businessman and a personal acquaintance, an official statement on behalf of the Ottoman government. Formulated during a month-long negotiation with a 16-member Jewish delegation, headed by Perlmutter and comprising Zionists and non-Zionists from Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire,[3]* the statement acknowledged the Jewish right to national and religious revival in Palestine.* "I am happy to be able to tell you that my negotiations with delegates of several Jewish organizations some time ago have led to a real result," Talaat wrote. The statement continued:
> 
> The Council of Ministers has just decided, following my statements to the Jewish delegation, to lift all restrictive measures on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine.* Strict orders have been given to the relevant authorities to ensure a benevolent treatment of the Jewish nation in Palestine based on complete equality with the other elements of the population.*
> 
> Regarding my invitation to several Jewish organizations,* I declare once again, as I already did to the Jewish delegation, my sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and settlement, for I am convinced of the importance and benefits of the settlement of Jews in Palestine for the Ottoman Empire*. I am willing to put this work under the high protection of the Ottoman Empire, and to promote it by all means that are compatible with the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population. It is my solid conviction that the special commission, which will be appointed to lay out a detailed project for this work, shall shortly complete its work. I will be happy to see the delegation here again thereafter to continue the conversations.[4]
> ----------------------
> --------------------
> 
> Arabs and Turks in those days did not deny the connection the Jews had to the Land of Israel/Palestine.
> 
> That only happened after Arabs like Husseini, in their Jihad war against the Jews, lost the war of 1948 and the one in 1967.
> 
> It is ONLY after those lost wars that Arabs devised the idea of saying that the Ashkenazi were converts to Judaism, and that Jews had no connection to the Temple Mount, or the Patriarch's Cave, etc.
> 
> Yeah, Tin, live and learn, and stop disrespecting the Jewish People because of your Christian beliefs that they should never have any rights.
> 
> Jews have rights.  They are not Dhimmis to fools like you.
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population.


Yeah, we see where that went. They lied.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration": "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> I assure you of my sympathy for the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine by means of well-organized immigration and colonization.​
> Indeed, Israel is a settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whichever there reason he used that word, he did acknowledge that the Jews were indigenous to Palestine:
> 
> "
> In a meeting in Istanbul on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha gave Leopold Perlmutter, a German Jewish businessman and a personal acquaintance, an official statement on behalf of the Ottoman government. Formulated during a month-long negotiation with a 16-member Jewish delegation, headed by Perlmutter and comprising Zionists and non-Zionists from Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire,[3]* the statement acknowledged the Jewish right to national and religious revival in Palestine.* "I am happy to be able to tell you that my negotiations with delegates of several Jewish organizations some time ago have led to a real result," Talaat wrote. The statement continued:
> 
> The Council of Ministers has just decided, following my statements to the Jewish delegation, to lift all restrictive measures on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine.* Strict orders have been given to the relevant authorities to ensure a benevolent treatment of the Jewish nation in Palestine based on complete equality with the other elements of the population.*
> 
> Regarding my invitation to several Jewish organizations,* I declare once again, as I already did to the Jewish delegation, my sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and settlement, for I am convinced of the importance and benefits of the settlement of Jews in Palestine for the Ottoman Empire*. I am willing to put this work under the high protection of the Ottoman Empire, and to promote it by all means that are compatible with the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population. It is my solid conviction that the special commission, which will be appointed to lay out a detailed project for this work, shall shortly complete its work. I will be happy to see the delegation here again thereafter to continue the conversations.[4]
> ----------------------
> --------------------
> 
> Arabs and Turks in those days did not deny the connection the Jews had to the Land of Israel/Palestine.
> 
> That only happened after Arabs like Husseini, in their Jihad war against the Jews, lost the war of 1948 and the one in 1967.
> 
> It is ONLY after those lost wars that Arabs devised the idea of saying that the Ashkenazi were converts to Judaism, and that Jews had no connection to the Temple Mount, or the Patriarch's Cave, etc.
> 
> Yeah, Tin, live and learn, and stop disrespecting the Jewish People because of your Christian beliefs that they should never have any rights.
> 
> Jews have rights.  They are not Dhimmis to fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we see where that went. They lied.
Click to expand...

What is the point of you lying like this?
No Arabs in the Knesset?
Arabs are not allowed to vote in Israel?
Arabs do not go to Universities in Israel, especially Arabs from the areas A and B of Judea and Samaria Israel is not obliged to allow into the country for education, health care or work?

You know that it is the opposite of what you want others to believe.
All ANYONE has to do is go to Israel.  The proof is there.
Many who believed what you wish them to believe have gone to Israel thinking as you do.  They returned home knowing the truth.

Israel is a democracy where all Citizens are allowed to vote.  Where non Jews have rights.  Where Arabs in the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now wanting to become citizens of Israel and NOT of the never going to happen  State of Palestine, where some Arabs with different thoughts from the Fatah and other groups end up beaten, tortured, arrested or killed.

Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.

Enjoy your Arab Palestine Tinman.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration": "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> I assure you of my sympathy for the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine by means of well-organized immigration and colonization.​
> Indeed, Israel is a settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whichever there reason he used that word, he did acknowledge that the Jews were indigenous to Palestine:
> 
> "
> In a meeting in Istanbul on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha gave Leopold Perlmutter, a German Jewish businessman and a personal acquaintance, an official statement on behalf of the Ottoman government. Formulated during a month-long negotiation with a 16-member Jewish delegation, headed by Perlmutter and comprising Zionists and non-Zionists from Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire,[3]* the statement acknowledged the Jewish right to national and religious revival in Palestine.* "I am happy to be able to tell you that my negotiations with delegates of several Jewish organizations some time ago have led to a real result," Talaat wrote. The statement continued:
> 
> The Council of Ministers has just decided, following my statements to the Jewish delegation, to lift all restrictive measures on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine.* Strict orders have been given to the relevant authorities to ensure a benevolent treatment of the Jewish nation in Palestine based on complete equality with the other elements of the population.*
> 
> Regarding my invitation to several Jewish organizations,* I declare once again, as I already did to the Jewish delegation, my sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and settlement, for I am convinced of the importance and benefits of the settlement of Jews in Palestine for the Ottoman Empire*. I am willing to put this work under the high protection of the Ottoman Empire, and to promote it by all means that are compatible with the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population. It is my solid conviction that the special commission, which will be appointed to lay out a detailed project for this work, shall shortly complete its work. I will be happy to see the delegation here again thereafter to continue the conversations.[4]
> ----------------------
> --------------------
> 
> Arabs and Turks in those days did not deny the connection the Jews had to the Land of Israel/Palestine.
> 
> That only happened after Arabs like Husseini, in their Jihad war against the Jews, lost the war of 1948 and the one in 1967.
> 
> It is ONLY after those lost wars that Arabs devised the idea of saying that the Ashkenazi were converts to Judaism, and that Jews had no connection to the Temple Mount, or the Patriarch's Cave, etc.
> 
> Yeah, Tin, live and learn, and stop disrespecting the Jewish People because of your Christian beliefs that they should never have any rights.
> 
> Jews have rights.  They are not Dhimmis to fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we see where that went. They lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the point of you lying like this?
> No Arabs in the Knesset?
> Arabs are not allowed to vote in Israel?
> Arabs do not go to Universities in Israel, especially Arabs from the areas A and B of Judea and Samaria Israel is not obliged to allow into the country for education, health care or work?
> 
> You know that it is the opposite of what you want others to believe.
> All ANYONE has to do is go to Israel.  The proof is there.
> Many who believed what you wish them to believe have gone to Israel thinking as you do.  They returned home knowing the truth.
> 
> Israel is a democracy where all Citizens are allowed to vote.  Where non Jews have rights.  Where Arabs in the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now wanting to become citizens of Israel and NOT of the never going to happen  State of Palestine, where some Arabs with different thoughts from the Fatah and other groups end up beaten, tortured, arrested or killed.
> 
> Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.
> 
> Enjoy your Arab Palestine Tinman.
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration": "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> I assure you of my sympathy for the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine by means of well-organized immigration and colonization.​
> Indeed, Israel is a settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whichever there reason he used that word, he did acknowledge that the Jews were indigenous to Palestine:
> 
> "
> In a meeting in Istanbul on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha gave Leopold Perlmutter, a German Jewish businessman and a personal acquaintance, an official statement on behalf of the Ottoman government. Formulated during a month-long negotiation with a 16-member Jewish delegation, headed by Perlmutter and comprising Zionists and non-Zionists from Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire,[3]* the statement acknowledged the Jewish right to national and religious revival in Palestine.* "I am happy to be able to tell you that my negotiations with delegates of several Jewish organizations some time ago have led to a real result," Talaat wrote. The statement continued:
> 
> The Council of Ministers has just decided, following my statements to the Jewish delegation, to lift all restrictive measures on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine.* Strict orders have been given to the relevant authorities to ensure a benevolent treatment of the Jewish nation in Palestine based on complete equality with the other elements of the population.*
> 
> Regarding my invitation to several Jewish organizations,* I declare once again, as I already did to the Jewish delegation, my sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and settlement, for I am convinced of the importance and benefits of the settlement of Jews in Palestine for the Ottoman Empire*. I am willing to put this work under the high protection of the Ottoman Empire, and to promote it by all means that are compatible with the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population. It is my solid conviction that the special commission, which will be appointed to lay out a detailed project for this work, shall shortly complete its work. I will be happy to see the delegation here again thereafter to continue the conversations.[4]
> ----------------------
> --------------------
> 
> Arabs and Turks in those days did not deny the connection the Jews had to the Land of Israel/Palestine.
> 
> That only happened after Arabs like Husseini, in their Jihad war against the Jews, lost the war of 1948 and the one in 1967.
> 
> It is ONLY after those lost wars that Arabs devised the idea of saying that the Ashkenazi were converts to Judaism, and that Jews had no connection to the Temple Mount, or the Patriarch's Cave, etc.
> 
> Yeah, Tin, live and learn, and stop disrespecting the Jewish People because of your Christian beliefs that they should never have any rights.
> 
> Jews have rights.  They are not Dhimmis to fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we see where that went. They lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the point of you lying like this?
> No Arabs in the Knesset?
> Arabs are not allowed to vote in Israel?
> Arabs do not go to Universities in Israel, especially Arabs from the areas A and B of Judea and Samaria Israel is not obliged to allow into the country for education, health care or work?
> 
> You know that it is the opposite of what you want others to believe.
> All ANYONE has to do is go to Israel.  The proof is there.
> Many who believed what you wish them to believe have gone to Israel thinking as you do.  They returned home knowing the truth.
> 
> Israel is a democracy where all Citizens are allowed to vote.  Where non Jews have rights.  Where Arabs in the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now wanting to become citizens of Israel and NOT of the never going to happen  State of Palestine, where some Arabs with different thoughts from the Fatah and other groups end up beaten, tortured, arrested or killed.
> 
> Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.
> 
> Enjoy your Arab Palestine Tinman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

She incited violence and murder against Jews????

She is exactly where she deserves to be.
Israel was too kind that they did not put her in prison with others like her to whom killing Jews is a blessing unto Allah.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> I assure you of my sympathy for the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine by means of well-organized immigration and colonization.​
> Indeed, Israel is a settler colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> Whichever there reason he used that word, he did acknowledge that the Jews were indigenous to Palestine:
> 
> "
> In a meeting in Istanbul on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha gave Leopold Perlmutter, a German Jewish businessman and a personal acquaintance, an official statement on behalf of the Ottoman government. Formulated during a month-long negotiation with a 16-member Jewish delegation, headed by Perlmutter and comprising Zionists and non-Zionists from Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire,[3]* the statement acknowledged the Jewish right to national and religious revival in Palestine.* "I am happy to be able to tell you that my negotiations with delegates of several Jewish organizations some time ago have led to a real result," Talaat wrote. The statement continued:
> 
> The Council of Ministers has just decided, following my statements to the Jewish delegation, to lift all restrictive measures on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine.* Strict orders have been given to the relevant authorities to ensure a benevolent treatment of the Jewish nation in Palestine based on complete equality with the other elements of the population.*
> 
> Regarding my invitation to several Jewish organizations,* I declare once again, as I already did to the Jewish delegation, my sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and settlement, for I am convinced of the importance and benefits of the settlement of Jews in Palestine for the Ottoman Empire*. I am willing to put this work under the high protection of the Ottoman Empire, and to promote it by all means that are compatible with the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population. It is my solid conviction that the special commission, which will be appointed to lay out a detailed project for this work, shall shortly complete its work. I will be happy to see the delegation here again thereafter to continue the conversations.[4]
> ----------------------
> --------------------
> 
> Arabs and Turks in those days did not deny the connection the Jews had to the Land of Israel/Palestine.
> 
> That only happened after Arabs like Husseini, in their Jihad war against the Jews, lost the war of 1948 and the one in 1967.
> 
> It is ONLY after those lost wars that Arabs devised the idea of saying that the Ashkenazi were converts to Judaism, and that Jews had no connection to the Temple Mount, or the Patriarch's Cave, etc.
> 
> Yeah, Tin, live and learn, and stop disrespecting the Jewish People because of your Christian beliefs that they should never have any rights.
> 
> Jews have rights.  They are not Dhimmis to fools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we see where that went. They lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the point of you lying like this?
> No Arabs in the Knesset?
> Arabs are not allowed to vote in Israel?
> Arabs do not go to Universities in Israel, especially Arabs from the areas A and B of Judea and Samaria Israel is not obliged to allow into the country for education, health care or work?
> 
> You know that it is the opposite of what you want others to believe.
> All ANYONE has to do is go to Israel.  The proof is there.
> Many who believed what you wish them to believe have gone to Israel thinking as you do.  They returned home knowing the truth.
> 
> Israel is a democracy where all Citizens are allowed to vote.  Where non Jews have rights.  Where Arabs in the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now wanting to become citizens of Israel and NOT of the never going to happen  State of Palestine, where some Arabs with different thoughts from the Fatah and other groups end up beaten, tortured, arrested or killed.
> 
> Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.
> 
> Enjoy your Arab Palestine Tinman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She incited violence and murder against Jews????
> 
> She is exactly where she deserves to be.
> Israel was too kind that they did not put her in prison with others like her to whom killing Jews is a blessing unto Allah.
Click to expand...

Thank you for regurgitating Israeli talking points.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whichever there reason he used that word, he did acknowledge that the Jews were indigenous to Palestine:
> 
> "
> In a meeting in Istanbul on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha gave Leopold Perlmutter, a German Jewish businessman and a personal acquaintance, an official statement on behalf of the Ottoman government. Formulated during a month-long negotiation with a 16-member Jewish delegation, headed by Perlmutter and comprising Zionists and non-Zionists from Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire,[3]* the statement acknowledged the Jewish right to national and religious revival in Palestine.* "I am happy to be able to tell you that my negotiations with delegates of several Jewish organizations some time ago have led to a real result," Talaat wrote. The statement continued:
> 
> The Council of Ministers has just decided, following my statements to the Jewish delegation, to lift all restrictive measures on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine.* Strict orders have been given to the relevant authorities to ensure a benevolent treatment of the Jewish nation in Palestine based on complete equality with the other elements of the population.*
> 
> Regarding my invitation to several Jewish organizations,* I declare once again, as I already did to the Jewish delegation, my sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and settlement, for I am convinced of the importance and benefits of the settlement of Jews in Palestine for the Ottoman Empire*. I am willing to put this work under the high protection of the Ottoman Empire, and to promote it by all means that are compatible with the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population. It is my solid conviction that the special commission, which will be appointed to lay out a detailed project for this work, shall shortly complete its work. I will be happy to see the delegation here again thereafter to continue the conversations.[4]
> ----------------------
> --------------------
> 
> Arabs and Turks in those days did not deny the connection the Jews had to the Land of Israel/Palestine.
> 
> That only happened after Arabs like Husseini, in their Jihad war against the Jews, lost the war of 1948 and the one in 1967.
> 
> It is ONLY after those lost wars that Arabs devised the idea of saying that the Ashkenazi were converts to Judaism, and that Jews had no connection to the Temple Mount, or the Patriarch's Cave, etc.
> 
> Yeah, Tin, live and learn, and stop disrespecting the Jewish People because of your Christian beliefs that they should never have any rights.
> 
> Jews have rights.  They are not Dhimmis to fools like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we see where that went. They lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the point of you lying like this?
> No Arabs in the Knesset?
> Arabs are not allowed to vote in Israel?
> Arabs do not go to Universities in Israel, especially Arabs from the areas A and B of Judea and Samaria Israel is not obliged to allow into the country for education, health care or work?
> 
> You know that it is the opposite of what you want others to believe.
> All ANYONE has to do is go to Israel.  The proof is there.
> Many who believed what you wish them to believe have gone to Israel thinking as you do.  They returned home knowing the truth.
> 
> Israel is a democracy where all Citizens are allowed to vote.  Where non Jews have rights.  Where Arabs in the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now wanting to become citizens of Israel and NOT of the never going to happen  State of Palestine, where some Arabs with different thoughts from the Fatah and other groups end up beaten, tortured, arrested or killed.
> 
> Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.
> 
> Enjoy your Arab Palestine Tinman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Palestine, where journalists are arrested all the time, by Fatah or Hamas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She incited violence and murder against Jews????
> 
> She is exactly where she deserves to be.
> Israel was too kind that they did not put her in prison with others like her to whom killing Jews is a blessing unto Allah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for regurgitating Israeli talking points.
Click to expand...

Thank you for hating the truth.  And for also rejecting the fact that had she done this against Abbas or any other Muslim leader she would not be under house arrest, she would have been in prison or hanged.

Salam


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ No Abdullah, it is not about Jerusalem and it is not about Settlements ]

hree Jews trapped in the Crater district of the port city were attacked by an armed mob; two were brutally murdered, the third was found alive but barely able to breathe.

For those old enough to remember, history appeared to be repeating itself.

Twenty years previously, in the wake of the UN vote to partition Palestine, Jewish businesses, stores, and homes had been attacked in Aden. Two Jewish schools were burned down. At the end of three days of violence in December 1947, more than 80 Jews were dead.

“There were not riots but murder,” Joseph Howard, a child at the time, later remembered.

A British commission of inquiry into the disturbances later found that “trigger happy” firing by soldiers of the Aden Protectorate Levies — an Arab military force trained and armed by the UK to protect its colony — were responsible for many of the Jewish deaths. These local forces, the inquiry concluded, were sympathetic to the rioters, and did not attempt to control them. The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.

(full article online)

As Jews evacuated from Aden bloodbath, a daring mission to rescue a Torah scroll


----------



## Sixties Fan

Murder, looting, burning: Remembering the Aden riots of 1947


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> [ No Abdullah, it is not about Jerusalem and it is not about Settlements ]
> 
> hree Jews trapped in the Crater district of the port city were attacked by an armed mob; two were brutally murdered, the third was found alive but barely able to breathe.
> 
> For those old enough to remember, history appeared to be repeating itself.
> 
> Twenty years previously, in the wake of the UN vote to partition Palestine, Jewish businesses, stores, and homes had been attacked in Aden. Two Jewish schools were burned down. At the end of three days of violence in December 1947, more than 80 Jews were dead.
> 
> “There were not riots but murder,” Joseph Howard, a child at the time, later remembered.
> 
> A British commission of inquiry into the disturbances later found that “trigger happy” firing by soldiers of the Aden Protectorate Levies — an Arab military force trained and armed by the UK to protect its colony — were responsible for many of the Jewish deaths. These local forces, the inquiry concluded, were sympathetic to the rioters, and did not attempt to control them. The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> As Jews evacuated from Aden bloodbath, a daring mission to rescue a Torah scroll





Sixties Fan said:


> The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.


Israel is a colonial project.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ No Abdullah, it is not about Jerusalem and it is not about Settlements ]
> 
> hree Jews trapped in the Crater district of the port city were attacked by an armed mob; two were brutally murdered, the third was found alive but barely able to breathe.
> 
> For those old enough to remember, history appeared to be repeating itself.
> 
> Twenty years previously, in the wake of the UN vote to partition Palestine, Jewish businesses, stores, and homes had been attacked in Aden. Two Jewish schools were burned down. At the end of three days of violence in December 1947, more than 80 Jews were dead.
> 
> “There were not riots but murder,” Joseph Howard, a child at the time, later remembered.
> 
> A British commission of inquiry into the disturbances later found that “trigger happy” firing by soldiers of the Aden Protectorate Levies — an Arab military force trained and armed by the UK to protect its colony — were responsible for many of the Jewish deaths. These local forces, the inquiry concluded, were sympathetic to the rioters, and did not attempt to control them. The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> As Jews evacuated from Aden bloodbath, a daring mission to rescue a Torah scroll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is a colonial project.
Click to expand...

The British called it a colony because they never meant for the Jewish to recreate their sovereign Nation.
Just as they gave away 78% to the Hashemites, they meant to keep the rest for themselves, as they had lost India.

British colony?  Yes.

Jewish colony?  No.  But the recreation of what had to happen sooner or later.  

The Jewish Nation/People being sovereign over their ancient homeland.

NOTHING colonial about it for the Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ No Abdullah, it is not about Jerusalem and it is not about Settlements ]
> 
> hree Jews trapped in the Crater district of the port city were attacked by an armed mob; two were brutally murdered, the third was found alive but barely able to breathe.
> 
> For those old enough to remember, history appeared to be repeating itself.
> 
> Twenty years previously, in the wake of the UN vote to partition Palestine, Jewish businesses, stores, and homes had been attacked in Aden. Two Jewish schools were burned down. At the end of three days of violence in December 1947, more than 80 Jews were dead.
> 
> “There were not riots but murder,” Joseph Howard, a child at the time, later remembered.
> 
> A British commission of inquiry into the disturbances later found that “trigger happy” firing by soldiers of the Aden Protectorate Levies — an Arab military force trained and armed by the UK to protect its colony — were responsible for many of the Jewish deaths. These local forces, the inquiry concluded, were sympathetic to the rioters, and did not attempt to control them. The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> As Jews evacuated from Aden bloodbath, a daring mission to rescue a Torah scroll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is a colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British called it a colony because they never meant for the Jewish to recreate their sovereign Nation.
> Just as they gave away 78% to the Hashemites, they meant to keep the rest for themselves, as they had lost India.
> 
> British colony?  Yes.
> 
> Jewish colony?  No.  But the recreation of what had to happen sooner or later.
> 
> The Jewish Nation/People being sovereign over their ancient homeland.
> 
> NOTHING colonial about it for the Jews.
Click to expand...

Even the Zionists called it colonialism.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ No Abdullah, it is not about Jerusalem and it is not about Settlements ]
> 
> hree Jews trapped in the Crater district of the port city were attacked by an armed mob; two were brutally murdered, the third was found alive but barely able to breathe.
> 
> For those old enough to remember, history appeared to be repeating itself.
> 
> Twenty years previously, in the wake of the UN vote to partition Palestine, Jewish businesses, stores, and homes had been attacked in Aden. Two Jewish schools were burned down. At the end of three days of violence in December 1947, more than 80 Jews were dead.
> 
> “There were not riots but murder,” Joseph Howard, a child at the time, later remembered.
> 
> A British commission of inquiry into the disturbances later found that “trigger happy” firing by soldiers of the Aden Protectorate Levies — an Arab military force trained and armed by the UK to protect its colony — were responsible for many of the Jewish deaths. These local forces, the inquiry concluded, were sympathetic to the rioters, and did not attempt to control them. The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> As Jews evacuated from Aden bloodbath, a daring mission to rescue a Torah scroll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is a colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British called it a colony because they never meant for the Jewish to recreate their sovereign Nation.
> Just as they gave away 78% to the Hashemites, they meant to keep the rest for themselves, as they had lost India.
> 
> British colony?  Yes.
> 
> Jewish colony?  No.  But the recreation of what had to happen sooner or later.
> 
> The Jewish Nation/People being sovereign over their ancient homeland.
> 
> NOTHING colonial about it for the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the Zionists called it colonialism.
Click to expand...

So what?  They were Jews, descendants of the ancient Israelites.  It was and is their ancient homeland.

They can call it whatever they want to call it.
They are still the indigenous people of the land with Every Right to resettle and recreate their Nation on their homeland.

That land does not have ANY OTHER indigenous people.
The Jewish People are the only ones, then and now.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The following is a rebuttal to Diana Buttu's piece in the _Washington Post_, _The world should respond to Trump’s Jerusalem declaration with sanctions on Israel_, which I submitted to the Washington Post
on Dec. 10. I was tentatively hopeful they would print this, but as time dragged on and I received no response, I realized there was no interest in printing this opinion. I offer it here, instead, in a slightly modified version.)

(full article online)

Israel is not the Aggressor and Everyone Knows That Jerusalem is its Capital ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Jordanian and local Arab edicts prohibited Christians and later Christian churches from buying land and houses in the Old City of Jerusalem, accordingto the nonprofit Gatestone Institute.

The Institute reported that Arab Muslims restricted the number of Christian pilgrimages permitted in Jerusalem and Bethlehem during Christmas and Easter. They further imposed strict rules on Christian schools, including mandatory teaching of the Muslim Koran.

While Christians faced hardship and very harsh restrictions, Jews were banished entirely from the holy city.

From 1949 onward, there were no Jewish homes, synagogues or businesses in ancient Jerusalem. Jewish homes were taken over and occupied by Arabs and Jews lost their businesses. Most Jews fled to the western half of Jerusalem or to other parts of the Israel. Israelis or Jews of any nationality could not enter the Muslim section of Jerusalem for 19 years.

The treatment of Jewish synagogues and holy sites were documented when Jewish forces entered the Old City after the Six Day War in June 1967. An official November 1967 report by Israel’s Minister of Religious Affairs found “wanton disregard of the religious rights of others,” according to news reported at the time by The Jewish Telegraph Agency.

When the Israelis entered the eastern part of Jerusalem, they found the most sacred ancient Jewish shrines had been desecrated or totally destroyed by the Jordanian army or by local Arab residents.

One of the most spectacular acts of desecration was the destruction of the 2,000-year old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, which was supposed to be protected by the armistice. Christian clergy who raised concerns about the desecration of the cemetery was told by Jordanian authorities “to mind his own business,” according to the 1967 Israeli report.

“Remember, Arabs moved into Jewish homes,” he added. “These were homes built in the 1880s and 1890s by Jews. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 Jews had to leave the areas under Jordanian occupation.”

(full article online)

What Life Was Like For Christians And Jews When Arabs Ruled Jerusalem


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> Jordanian and local Arab edicts prohibited Christians and later Christian churches from buying land and houses in the Old City of Jerusalem, accordingto the nonprofit Gatestone Institute.
> 
> The Institute reported that Arab Muslims restricted the number of Christian pilgrimages permitted in Jerusalem and Bethlehem during Christmas and Easter. They further imposed strict rules on Christian schools, including mandatory teaching of the Muslim Koran.
> 
> While Christians faced hardship and very harsh restrictions, Jews were banished entirely from the holy city.
> 
> From 1949 onward, there were no Jewish homes, synagogues or businesses in ancient Jerusalem. Jewish homes were taken over and occupied by Arabs and Jews lost their businesses. Most Jews fled to the western half of Jerusalem or to other parts of the Israel. Israelis or Jews of any nationality could not enter the Muslim section of Jerusalem for 19 years.
> 
> The treatment of Jewish synagogues and holy sites were documented when Jewish forces entered the Old City after the Six Day War in June 1967. An official November 1967 report by Israel’s Minister of Religious Affairs found “wanton disregard of the religious rights of others,” according to news reported at the time by The Jewish Telegraph Agency.
> 
> When the Israelis entered the eastern part of Jerusalem, they found the most sacred ancient Jewish shrines had been desecrated or totally destroyed by the Jordanian army or by local Arab residents.
> 
> One of the most spectacular acts of desecration was the destruction of the 2,000-year old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, which was supposed to be protected by the armistice. Christian clergy who raised concerns about the desecration of the cemetery was told by Jordanian authorities “to mind his own business,” according to the 1967 Israeli report.
> 
> “Remember, Arabs moved into Jewish homes,” he added. “These were homes built in the 1880s and 1890s by Jews. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 Jews had to leave the areas under Jordanian occupation.”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> What Life Was Like For Christians And Jews When Arabs Ruled Jerusalem



Most of that blabber is from the Gatestone Institute and Center for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. It must be true. LOL


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordanian and local Arab edicts prohibited Christians and later Christian churches from buying land and houses in the Old City of Jerusalem, accordingto the nonprofit Gatestone Institute.
> 
> The Institute reported that Arab Muslims restricted the number of Christian pilgrimages permitted in Jerusalem and Bethlehem during Christmas and Easter. They further imposed strict rules on Christian schools, including mandatory teaching of the Muslim Koran.
> 
> While Christians faced hardship and very harsh restrictions, Jews were banished entirely from the holy city.
> 
> From 1949 onward, there were no Jewish homes, synagogues or businesses in ancient Jerusalem. Jewish homes were taken over and occupied by Arabs and Jews lost their businesses. Most Jews fled to the western half of Jerusalem or to other parts of the Israel. Israelis or Jews of any nationality could not enter the Muslim section of Jerusalem for 19 years.
> 
> The treatment of Jewish synagogues and holy sites were documented when Jewish forces entered the Old City after the Six Day War in June 1967. An official November 1967 report by Israel’s Minister of Religious Affairs found “wanton disregard of the religious rights of others,” according to news reported at the time by The Jewish Telegraph Agency.
> 
> When the Israelis entered the eastern part of Jerusalem, they found the most sacred ancient Jewish shrines had been desecrated or totally destroyed by the Jordanian army or by local Arab residents.
> 
> One of the most spectacular acts of desecration was the destruction of the 2,000-year old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, which was supposed to be protected by the armistice. Christian clergy who raised concerns about the desecration of the cemetery was told by Jordanian authorities “to mind his own business,” according to the 1967 Israeli report.
> 
> “Remember, Arabs moved into Jewish homes,” he added. “These were homes built in the 1880s and 1890s by Jews. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 Jews had to leave the areas under Jordanian occupation.”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> What Life Was Like For Christians And Jews When Arabs Ruled Jerusalem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that blabber is from the Gatestone Institute and Center for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. It must be true. LOL
Click to expand...

Except that....as usual.....you have not shown any evidence of it not being true.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

Herzl, Uganda and the "First" Balfour Declaration (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

26% of the Saudi volunteers were killed - and they are claiming that they were winning?

None of the Arab nations who fought in 1948 cared about "Palestinians." No one even used the term. They just wanted to defeat the Jews, and they were quite clear then that they mean Jews, not "Zionists"

Now, 70 years later, Saudi Arabia is pretending to be the savior of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948. It is probably not a coincidence that the Saudis are releasing this just as they are trying to push their own agenda in the Middle East, and how to handle the Palestinian Arabs.

(full article online)

Saudis claim they would have defeated Israel in 1948, if it wasn't for a truce ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ A view of how the British viewed the Jews 100 years ago ]

Now online: Never-before seen footage of 1900s Jewish Britain


----------



## Sixties Fan

My Right Word: What Was That "Whole"


----------



## Mindful

Fact #1: There could have been a two-state solution as early as 1947. That’s precisely what the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) proposed, recognizing the presence of two peoples – and two nationalisms – in a territory governed temporarily by the United Kingdom. And the UN General Assembly decisively endorsed the UNSCOP proposal. The Jewish side pragmatically accepted the plan, but the Arab world categorically rejected it.

Fact #2: When Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, it extended the hand of friendship to its Arab neighbors, as clearly evidenced by its founding documents and statements. That offer, too, was spurned. Instead, five Arab armies declared war on the fledgling Jewish state, seeking its total destruction. Despite vastly outnumbering the Jews and possessing superior military arsenals, they failed in their quest.

Aish.com


----------



## montelatici

Fact 1. The partition plan left a third of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians in the Jewish sector, it was politically impossible for the Palestinians to accept the loss of a third of their population.  Particularly since the non-Jews including the Bedouins left in the Jewish sector outnumbered the Jews and would never be allowed to achieve self-determination.

Fact 2. The Jews had already invaded the Palestinian sector prior to the Arab League's intervention.  As an example Jaffa, within the Arab sector, had been under seige for weeks long before the execution of the partition plan (and Israel's declaration of independence) and had been forced to surrender (and non-Jew civilians forced to evacuate with British help) before the Arab League's intervention.  

Fact 3.  No part of the Jewish partition was invaded by the Arab League.  The Arab League limited itself to attempting to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of non-Jews from the Arab and International sectors.

Just facts.


----------



## Mindful

I thought of bothering, but it's complete  waste of time.


----------



## montelatici

Of course it is a waste of time to deny facts.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Fact 1. The partition plan left a third of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians in the Jewish sector, it was politically impossible for the Palestinians to accept the loss of a third of their population.  Particularly since the non-Jews including the Bedouins left in the Jewish sector outnumbered the Jews and would never be allowed to achieve self-determination.
> 
> Fact 2. The Jews had already invaded the Palestinian sector prior to the Arab League's intervention.  As an example Jaffa, within the Arab sector, had been under seige for weeks long before the execution of the partition plan (and Israel's declaration of independence) and had been forced to surrender (and non-Jew civilians forced to evacuate with British help) before the Arab League's intervention.
> 
> Fact 3.  No part of the Jewish partition was invaded by the Arab League.  The Arab League limited itself to attempting to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of non-Jews from the Arab and International sectors.
> 
> Just facts.



You mean the British siege of old city after the Bloody Day in Jaffa or the fight against Muslim Brotherhood in Haifa and Jaffa since the beginning of 48?


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> Of course it is a waste of time to deny facts.



Nothing to deny, because you don't give any.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact 1. The partition plan left a third of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians in the Jewish sector, it was politically impossible for the Palestinians to accept the loss of a third of their population.  Particularly since the non-Jews including the Bedouins left in the Jewish sector outnumbered the Jews and would never be allowed to achieve self-determination.
> 
> Fact 2. The Jews had already invaded the Palestinian sector prior to the Arab League's intervention.  As an example Jaffa, within the Arab sector, had been under seige for weeks long before the execution of the partition plan (and Israel's declaration of independence) and had been forced to surrender (and non-Jew civilians forced to evacuate with British help) before the Arab League's intervention.
> 
> Fact 3.  No part of the Jewish partition was invaded by the Arab League.  The Arab League limited itself to attempting to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of non-Jews from the Arab and International sectors.
> 
> Just facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the British siege of old city after the Bloody Day in Jaffa or the fight against Muslim Brotherhood in Haifa and Jaffa since the beginning of 48?
Click to expand...


No, the facts:

"In April 1948, British forces, which had hitherto acted as a buffer between Jews and Arabs forces in Haifa, the largest port town, announced to the Jewish authorities there that they would be withdrawing. This sent a green light to proceed with the city’s ‘de-Arabisation’, which involved expelling its 75,000 Palestinian residents, and is described by Pappe as ‘one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the British empire in the Middle East’. The same fate befell the city of Jaffa, which was taken in May 1948 after a three-week long siege by Israeli forces, who succeeded in expelling the entire population of 50,000 with the ‘help’ of British mediation. In parts of Jerusalem, the British even disarmed the few Arab residents defending themselves against Jewish attacks on their neighbourhoods. The British also aided Israel’s annexation of Palestine in other ways, such as handing over land ownership deeds for villages, which provided vital information to aid the depopulation process."

Britain’s role in the war in Palestine, 1948


----------



## ForeverYoung436

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact 1. The partition plan left a third of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians in the Jewish sector, it was politically impossible for the Palestinians to accept the loss of a third of their population.  Particularly since the non-Jews including the Bedouins left in the Jewish sector outnumbered the Jews and would never be allowed to achieve self-determination.
> 
> Fact 2. The Jews had already invaded the Palestinian sector prior to the Arab League's intervention.  As an example Jaffa, within the Arab sector, had been under seige for weeks long before the execution of the partition plan (and Israel's declaration of independence) and had been forced to surrender (and non-Jew civilians forced to evacuate with British help) before the Arab League's intervention.
> 
> Fact 3.  No part of the Jewish partition was invaded by the Arab League.  The Arab League limited itself to attempting to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of non-Jews from the Arab and International sectors.
> 
> Just facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the British siege of old city after the Bloody Day in Jaffa or the fight against Muslim Brotherhood in Haifa and Jaffa since the beginning of 48?
Click to expand...



Wow, so 12,000 Jews were forced to flee Jaffa!  No wonder it ended up being an Arab city, similar to Hebron.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact 1. The partition plan left a third of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians in the Jewish sector, it was politically impossible for the Palestinians to accept the loss of a third of their population.  Particularly since the non-Jews including the Bedouins left in the Jewish sector outnumbered the Jews and would never be allowed to achieve self-determination.
> 
> Fact 2. The Jews had already invaded the Palestinian sector prior to the Arab League's intervention.  As an example Jaffa, within the Arab sector, had been under seige for weeks long before the execution of the partition plan (and Israel's declaration of independence) and had been forced to surrender (and non-Jew civilians forced to evacuate with British help) before the Arab League's intervention.
> 
> Fact 3.  No part of the Jewish partition was invaded by the Arab League.  The Arab League limited itself to attempting to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of non-Jews from the Arab and International sectors.
> 
> Just facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the British siege of old city after the Bloody Day in Jaffa or the fight against Muslim Brotherhood in Haifa and Jaffa since the beginning of 48?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the facts:
> 
> "In April 1948, British forces, which had hitherto acted as a buffer between Jews and Arabs forces in Haifa, the largest port town, announced to the Jewish authorities there that they would be withdrawing. This sent a green light to proceed with the city’s ‘de-Arabisation’, which involved expelling its 75,000 Palestinian residents, and is described by Pappe as ‘one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the British empire in the Middle East’. The same fate befell the city of Jaffa, which was taken in May 1948 after a three-week long siege by Israeli forces, who succeeded in expelling the entire population of 50,000 with the ‘help’ of British mediation. In parts of Jerusalem, the British even disarmed the few Arab residents defending themselves against Jewish attacks on their neighbourhoods. The British also aided Israel’s annexation of Palestine in other ways, such as handing over land ownership deeds for villages, which provided vital information to aid the depopulation process."
> 
> Britain’s role in the war in Palestine, 1948
Click to expand...



If this report is true, why are there still so many Arabs in Haifa and Jaffa?


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact 1. The partition plan left a third of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians in the Jewish sector, it was politically impossible for the Palestinians to accept the loss of a third of their population.  Particularly since the non-Jews including the Bedouins left in the Jewish sector outnumbered the Jews and would never be allowed to achieve self-determination.
> 
> Fact 2. The Jews had already invaded the Palestinian sector prior to the Arab League's intervention.  As an example Jaffa, within the Arab sector, had been under seige for weeks long before the execution of the partition plan (and Israel's declaration of independence) and had been forced to surrender (and non-Jew civilians forced to evacuate with British help) before the Arab League's intervention.
> 
> Fact 3.  No part of the Jewish partition was invaded by the Arab League.  The Arab League limited itself to attempting to prevent the massacre and/or expulsion of non-Jews from the Arab and International sectors.
> 
> Just facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the British siege of old city after the Bloody Day in Jaffa or the fight against Muslim Brotherhood in Haifa and Jaffa since the beginning of 48?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the facts:
> 
> "In April 1948, British forces, which had hitherto acted as a buffer between Jews and Arabs forces in Haifa, the largest port town, announced to the Jewish authorities there that they would be withdrawing. This sent a green light to proceed with the city’s ‘de-Arabisation’, which involved expelling its 75,000 Palestinian residents, and is described by Pappe as ‘one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the British empire in the Middle East’. The same fate befell the city of Jaffa, which was taken in May 1948 after a three-week long siege by Israeli forces, who succeeded in expelling the entire population of 50,000 with the ‘help’ of British mediation. In parts of Jerusalem, the British even disarmed the few Arab residents defending themselves against Jewish attacks on their neighbourhoods. The British also aided Israel’s annexation of Palestine in other ways, such as handing over land ownership deeds for villages, which provided vital information to aid the depopulation process."
> 
> Britain’s role in the war in Palestine, 1948
Click to expand...


You take events out of context and victimize just one side, when in fact both sides took part the war:

"Jaffa, an Arab city of about 750,000 inhabitants, had been earmarked by the UN partition resolution for Palestinian sovereignty. But it was to be an enclave inside the Jewish State, its land communications with the rest of Palestinian State depended upon the Jews. The inhabitants felt isolated and vulnerable. But as with Haifa the exodus from the town was triggered by the start hostilities, which were initiated by Jaffa's militiamen, who began sniping into neighboring Tel-Aviv on 30 November 1947. The following day dozens of Arabs assaulted Jewish houses bordering on the northern Manshiya neighborhood and an Arab mob in Abu Kabir, a neighborhood to the west, attacked a Jewish car and murdered its 3 passengers. Jewish retaliatory strikes followed."
The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited

This is what Jews were fighting, among many others:






 :


----------



## montelatici

So that's the Zionist story.  The Jews were peacefully surrounding Jaffa, eh.  You people crack me up.  The Jews had every intention of invading Jaffa and expelling the non-Jews as part of Plan D. Jaffa was besieged by the Jews and the Muslims and Christians were simply defending themselves from an imminent invasion.

The Muslims and Christians were defending themselves from a European invader intent on colonizing more the land and enslaving the native people.  They were quite aware of what the Jews intended to do to them and they put up the resistance they could even with the British siding with the Jews.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> So that's the Zionist story.  The Jews were peacefully surrounding Jaffa, eh.  You people crack me up.  The Jews had every intention of invading Jaffa and expelling the non-Jews as part of Plan D. Jaffa was besieged by the Jews and the Muslims and Christians were simply defending themselves from an imminent invasion.



C'mon You don't even get the time-line, Arab snipers killed 35 people in Jaffa and Tel-Aviv, roads were raided and Haifa citizens, including Arabs were harassed by Arab militias ...what You're talking about happened months later.

Did You look into the location of Jaffa? This could never work in the middle of civil war.


----------



## montelatici

Thankfully there are contemporaneous news reports that confirm that the Jews started the attack on Jaffa. They began laying down mortar fire on the city in April FFS. The initial attack was repelled by the Palestinians or the British told the Jews to stop the attack until they got the hell out.  

"*From the archive, 26 April 1948: Irgun fails to seize Jaffa*
Originally published in the Manchester Guardian on 26 April 1948


"Irgun, the Jewish terrorist organisation, yesterday morning assembled a strong force on the "frontier" of the Jewish city of Tel Aviv and began an attack on the Arab port of Jaffa. The attack was not authorised by Hagana, the Jewish Army, and its members on the spot stood by and watched.

Irgun put down a heavy mortar fire on the Arab side of the frontier and then claimed to have advanced. Exactly what happened is not clear, as the only statement made last evening by any party concerned in the fighting was one broadcast by Hagana, over its radio from Tel Aviv."

From the archive, 26 April 1948: Irgun fails to seize Jaffa

All you people know if Zionist propaganda.  The Jews were intent on expelling non-Jews everywhere they could.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Thankfully there are contemporaneous news reports that confirm that the Jews started the attack on Jaffa. They began laying down mortar fire on the city in April FFS. The initial attack was repelled by the Palestinians or the British told the Jews to stop the attack until they got the hell out.
> 
> "*From the archive, 26 April 1948: Irgun fails to seize Jaffa*
> Originally published in the Manchester Guardian on 26 April 1948
> 
> 
> "Irgun, the Jewish terrorist organisation, yesterday morning assembled a strong force on the "frontier" of the Jewish city of Tel Aviv and began an attack on the Arab port of Jaffa. The attack was not authorised by Hagana, the Jewish Army, and its members on the spot stood by and watched.
> 
> Irgun put down a heavy mortar fire on the Arab side of the frontier and then claimed to have advanced. Exactly what happened is not clear, as the only statement made last evening by any party concerned in the fighting was one broadcast by Hagana, over its radio from Tel Aviv."
> 
> From the archive, 26 April 1948: Irgun fails to seize Jaffa
> 
> All you people know if Zionist propaganda.  The Jews were intent on expelling non-Jews everywhere they could.





You take events out of context and victimize just one side, when in fact both sides took part the war:

"Jaffa, an Arab city of about 750,000 inhabitants, had been earmarked by the UN partition resolution for Palestinian sovereignty. But it was to be an enclave inside the Jewish State, its land communications with the rest of Palestinian State depended upon the Jews. The inhabitants felt isolated and vulnerable. But as with Haifa the exodus from the town was triggered by the start hostilities, which were initiated by Jaffa's militiamen, who began sniping into neighboring Tel-Aviv on 30 November 1947. The following day dozens of Arabs assaulted Jewish houses bordering on the northern Manshiya neighborhood and an Arab mob in Abu Kabir, a neighborhood to the west, attacked a Jewish car and murdered its 3 passengers. Jewish retaliatory strikes followed."
The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited


----------



## montelatici

Thankfully contemporaneous reports by the British military, who were there, demonstrate you are full of crap. The Jews started invading the Arab partition early on.  The Muslims and Christians were defending themselves from the Jew colonial plan.

"After the the UN Partition plan was announced in November 1947 violence escalated and the Zionist battle to colonize Palestine with the establishment of 'facts on the ground' began in earnest. Even though in February 1947 the British had announced their intention to leave Palestine the following Spring, attacks on British service personnel intensified even though nothing could be gained. See also *Washington Report* for an article about the violence of 1947."

events:1947 - British Forces in Palestine


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Thankfully contemporaneous reports by the British military, who were there, demonstrate you are full of crap. The Jews started invading the Arab partition early on.  The Muslims and Christians were defending themselves from the Jew colonial plan.
> 
> "After the the UN Partition plan was announced in November 1947 violence escalated and the Zionist battle to colonize Palestine with the establishment of 'facts on the ground' began in earnest. Even though in February 1947 the British had announced their intention to leave Palestine the following Spring, attacks on British service personnel intensified even though nothing could be gained. See also *Washington Report* for an article about the violence of 1947."
> 
> events:1947 - British Forces in Palestine



You'll eat dust trying to find the first bullet shot.
Palestinian Jews were attacked by their Arab neighbors long before any Zionist arrived.

But if You wanna play be my guest - who first had guns Arabs or Zionists?


----------



## montelatici

The Europeans attacked the native people when they began invading Palestine with settler colonial aspirations in the 1800s.  Besides the Jewish attacks on the Palestinians farmers, the mere fact that the Jews intended to colonize and subjugate the people in an already inhabited land is an attack.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> The Europeans attacked the native people when they began invading Palestine with settler colonial aspirations in the 1800s.  Besides the Jewish attacks on the Palestinians farmers, the mere fact that the Jews intended to colonize and subjugate the people in an already inhabited land is an attack.



So now You're trying to justify Arab violence by changing cause and effect.

Arab pogroms against native Palestinian Jews occurred* for decades before* any Zionist ever shot a bullet or proclaimed a plan to establish a state.

That You constantly look for excuses to blame it all on the Jews - only shows Your fixation.
In fact it were the Arabs themselves who helped Europeans invade Ottoman Palestine to cede the land to a bigger Arab state- rather than to have an independent Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

[ Still someone's hero  ]

At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two. 

Here is a clear and typical example—in detail, which is where the devil resides—of Pappe’s handiwork. I take this example from The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. On February 2, 1948, a young Jewish scientist named Aharon Katzir came to see David Ben-Gurion, the chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive and the leader of the Jewish community in Palestine. Two months earlier, the General Assembly of the United Nations had recommended the partition of the country into two states. The Zionist establishment had accepted Resolution 181, but the Palestinian Arab leadership, and the surrounding Arab states, had rejected it—and Palestinian militiamen began to shoot at Jewish traffic, pedestrians, and settlements. The first Arab-Israeli war had begun.

Katzir had come to report to the man managing the Jewish war effort (Ben-Gurion also held the defense portfolio in the Jewish Agency Executive) about an experiment that he and his team in the Haganah’s “science branch” had been conducting. As was his wont, Ben-Gurion jotted down in his diary what his visitor told him. (Ben-Gurion’s diary, a major source on Israeli and Middle East history, consists almost entirely of his summaries of reports by people coming to see him; very few entries actually enlighten the reader about what Ben-Gurion thought or said.) The entry reads:

Aharon: ‘Shimshon’ [the operation’s codename], an experiment was conducted on animals. The researchers were clothed in gas masks and suit. The suit costs 20 grush, the mask about 20 grush (all must be bought immediately). The operation [or experiment] went well. No animal died, the [animals] remained dazzled [as when a car’s headlights dazzle an oncoming driver] for 24 hours. There are some 50 kilos [of the gas]. [They] were moved to Tel Aviv. The [production] equipment is being moved here. On the laboratory level, some 20 kilos can be produced per day.

This is the only accessible source that exists, to the best of my knowledge, about the meeting and the gas experiment, and it is the sole source cited by Pappe for his description of the meeting and the “Shimshon” project. But this is how Pappe gives the passage in English:

Katzir reported to Ben-Gurion: “We are experimenting with animals. Our researchers were wearing gas masks and adequate outfit. Good results. The animals did not die (they were just blinded). We can produce 20 kilos a day of this stuff.”

(full article online)

The Liar as Hero


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ When did the Jews really began to create an army to protect themselves?  1947 Very good documentary to what finally led to the UN partition and establishment of the State of Israel ]


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> [ When did the Jews really began to create an army to protect themselves?  1947 Very good documentary to what finally led to the UN partition and establishment of the State of Israel ]


Reminds me of the of the Flotilla.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ When did the Jews really began to create an army to protect themselves?  1947 Very good documentary to what finally led to the UN partition and establishment of the State of Israel ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the of the Flotilla.
Click to expand...

Only a brain like yours would compare Jews fleeing the nazi persecution with empty brained flotillas for people who did not need the products the flotillas brought to Gaza, which ended up being delivered to Gaza regardless.

Keep it up


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ When did the Jews really began to create an army to protect themselves?  1947 Very good documentary to what finally led to the UN partition and establishment of the State of Israel ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the of the Flotilla.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a brain like yours would compare Jews fleeing the nazi persecution with empty brained flotillas for people who did not need the products the flotillas brought to Gaza, which ended up being delivered to Gaza regardless.
> 
> Keep it up
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> which ended up being delivered to Gaza regardless.


Another Israeli lie.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ When did the Jews really began to create an army to protect themselves?  1947 Very good documentary to what finally led to the UN partition and establishment of the State of Israel ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the of the Flotilla.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a brain like yours would compare Jews fleeing the nazi persecution with empty brained flotillas for people who did not need the products the flotillas brought to Gaza, which ended up being delivered to Gaza regardless.
> 
> Keep it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ended up being delivered to Gaza regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Israeli lie.
Click to expand...

Says Tinfoil with no evidence to what you just posted.
But......as usual.....you got off topic.....


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ When did the Jews really began to create an army to protect themselves?  1947 Very good documentary to what finally led to the UN partition and establishment of the State of Israel ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the of the Flotilla.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a brain like yours would compare Jews fleeing the nazi persecution with empty brained flotillas for people who did not need the products the flotillas brought to Gaza, which ended up being delivered to Gaza regardless.
> 
> Keep it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> which ended up being delivered to Gaza regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another Israeli lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says Tinfoil with no evidence to what you just posted.
> But......as usual.....you got off topic.....
Click to expand...

Are lies "on topic?"


----------



## rylah

Israel had MORE indigenous people and native Arabs in the govt in 69 years
 than the US congress - in 229 yrs.

So stop with the hypocrisy  - * #END United States APARTHEID.*


Q. Who gave YOU the mandate?


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> Israel had MORE indigenous people and native Arabs in the govt in 69 years
> than the US congress - in 229 yrs.
> 
> So stop with the hypocrisy  - * #END United States APARTHEID.*
> 
> 
> 
> Q. Who gave You the mandate?



Native Americans represent less than 1 percent of the U.S. population.  The native people represent about 50% of the people under Jew rule. So stop with your hypocrisy. 

*Israel is an Apartheid state.*


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel had MORE indigenous people and native Arabs in the govt in 69 years
> than the US congress - in 229 yrs.
> 
> So stop with the hypocrisy  - * #END United States APARTHEID.*
> 
> 
> 
> Q. Who gave You the mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans represent less than 1 percent of the U.S. population.  The native people represent about 50% of the people under Jew rule. So stop with your hypocrisy.
> 
> *Israel is an Apartheid state.*
Click to expand...


Israel had 81 Arab members of Knesset - in 69 years.
US had only 21 natives in her 229 years of "existence", someone would call - *#US OCCUPATION.*

You must change the congress drastically - right now - put 20 native Americas instead of the Irish, Polish and German immigrants.  Sounds familiar?

*Your Hypocrisy Debt  to Israel grows exponentially with each vote You take.*

Q. Who gave You the mandate?


----------



## montelatici

Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule,  represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate.  21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350.  To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule,  represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate.  21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350.  To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.




Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule,  represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate.  21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350.  To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.
Click to expand...


Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine.  The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine.  The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule,  represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate.  21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350.  To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine.  The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine.  The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.
Click to expand...


Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with* native and immigrant Arabs and Jews*, *who were both *from  Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.

And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.


----------



## teddyearp

Hmm. I still have to wonder if there would ever been a British Mandate for that area if the Pasha had not drug the Ottoman empire into WWI.

But this is too touchy a subject for the supposed pro-Palestinians (who are actually Anti-Israel) because it would lay the blame for the whole mess there again at the feet of the Arab/Muslims.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule,  represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate.  21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350.  To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine.  The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine.  The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with* native and immigrant Arabs and Jews*, *who were both *from  Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.
> 
> And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.
Click to expand...


From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.

*"PALESTINE.*

*"CORRESPONDENCE *
*WITH THE*
*PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION*
*AND THE *
*ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*

*Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.*
*JUNE, 1922.*
*LONDON:

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.

Sir,

We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.




We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—




(a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
(b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

(c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.



(d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.




(e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
(f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.

(g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.

(h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.


For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
*


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule,  represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate.  21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350.  To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine.  The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine.  The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with* native and immigrant Arabs and Jews*, *who were both *from  Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.
> 
> And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *"CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> February 21st, 1922.
> 
> Sir,
> 
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—
> *
> *Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.
> 
> We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
> *
> *It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
> Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.
> 
> Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.
> 
> We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.
> 
> We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
> (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
> 
> (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
> 
> (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
> *
> *For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
Click to expand...

Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ No Abdullah, it is not about Jerusalem and it is not about Settlements ]
> 
> hree Jews trapped in the Crater district of the port city were attacked by an armed mob; two were brutally murdered, the third was found alive but barely able to breathe.
> 
> For those old enough to remember, history appeared to be repeating itself.
> 
> Twenty years previously, in the wake of the UN vote to partition Palestine, Jewish businesses, stores, and homes had been attacked in Aden. Two Jewish schools were burned down. At the end of three days of violence in December 1947, more than 80 Jews were dead.
> 
> “There were not riots but murder,” Joseph Howard, a child at the time, later remembered.
> 
> A British commission of inquiry into the disturbances later found that “trigger happy” firing by soldiers of the Aden Protectorate Levies — an Arab military force trained and armed by the UK to protect its colony — were responsible for many of the Jewish deaths. These local forces, the inquiry concluded, were sympathetic to the rioters, and did not attempt to control them. The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> As Jews evacuated from Aden bloodbath, a daring mission to rescue a Torah scroll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is a colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British called it a colony because they never meant for the Jewish to recreate their sovereign Nation.
> Just as they gave away 78% to the Hashemites, they meant to keep the rest for themselves, as they had lost India.
> 
> British colony?  Yes.
> 
> Jewish colony?  No.  But the recreation of what had to happen sooner or later.
> 
> The Jewish Nation/People being sovereign over their ancient homeland.
> 
> NOTHING colonial about it for the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even the Zionists called it colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  They were Jews, descendants of the ancient Israelites.  It was and is their ancient homeland.
> 
> They can call it whatever they want to call it.
> They are still the indigenous people of the land with Every Right to resettle and recreate their Nation on their homeland.
> 
> That land does not have ANY OTHER indigenous people.
> The Jewish People are the only ones, then and now.
Click to expand...

 

The same language (Hebrew), the same currency (shekels), the same capital (Jerusalem), and the same names for the country (Israel, Judea), prove that the Jews are the indigenous ppl of that land.  The nomadic Arabs can go back to Arabia (or, in Shirley Temper's case, Bosnia).


----------



## montelatici

The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians.  They are the descendants  indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived.  The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians.  They are the descendants  indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived.  The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.


The Palestinians are:

1)  Arabs from Arabia, no matter how much you wish to lie for them, they will get very mad at you for saying that they are NOT Arabs.
Especially those who now call themselves Palestinians.
They never did not call themselves Arabs.

2)  Most of the Arabs who now live in the former Mandate for Palestine immigrated into the area from the countries where they were living in, including in Arabia.

3) No, the "Palestinians" are not descendants of the people who lived on ancient Canaan before the Jews.
Why, because the Jews are composed of most of the people who lived in that area 3800 years ago.

The Jewish People/Nation are definitely BACK where they came from.
Ancient Canaan.  Israel.  Judea.  Israel again.

Same area.  Same place.  Same Nation.  Same people.




And as the ancient Hebrews would say


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians.  They are the descendants  indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived.  The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are:
> 
> 1)  Arabs from Arabia, no matter how much you wish to lie for them, they will get very mad at you for saying that they are NOT Arabs.
> Especially those who now call themselves Palestinians.
> They never did not call themselves Arabs.
> 
> 2)  Most of the Arabs who now live in the former Mandate for Palestine immigrated into the area from the countries where they were living in, including in Arabia.
> 
> 3) No, the "Palestinians" are not descendants of the people who lived on ancient Canaan before the Jews.
> Why, because the Jews are composed of most of the people who lived in that area 3800 years ago.
> 
> The Jewish People/Nation are definitely BACK where they came from.
> Ancient Canaan.  Israel.  Judea.  Israel again.
> 
> Same area.  Same place.  Same Nation.  Same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as the ancient Hebrews would say
Click to expand...


Arabs are Arabic speaking people.  Arabs can be ethnically Berbers, as in the Maghreb, North Africans as in Egypt or generally Levantine as the Palestians, Lebanese etc. It would be like claiming Hispanics are all from Spain.  

As far as the Palestinians:

*"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin...."*
Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted


As far as the European Jews that invaded and colonized Palestine, they are European*:*

*"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"
*

*Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*

*
Your fantasyland bullshit won't hunt.
*


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians.  They are the descendants  indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived.  The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are:
> 
> 1)  Arabs from Arabia, no matter how much you wish to lie for them, they will get very mad at you for saying that they are NOT Arabs.
> Especially those who now call themselves Palestinians.
> They never did not call themselves Arabs.
> 
> 2)  Most of the Arabs who now live in the former Mandate for Palestine immigrated into the area from the countries where they were living in, including in Arabia.
> 
> 3) No, the "Palestinians" are not descendants of the people who lived on ancient Canaan before the Jews.
> Why, because the Jews are composed of most of the people who lived in that area 3800 years ago.
> 
> The Jewish People/Nation are definitely BACK where they came from.
> Ancient Canaan.  Israel.  Judea.  Israel again.
> 
> Same area.  Same place.  Same Nation.  Same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as the ancient Hebrews would say
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs are Arabic speaking people.  Arabs can be ethnically Berbers, as in the Maghreb, North Africans as in Egypt or generally Levantine as the Palestians, Lebanese etc. It would be like claiming Hispanics are all from Spain.
> 
> As far as the Palestinians:
> 
> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin...."*
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
> 
> 
> As far as the European Jews that invaded and colonized Palestine, they are European*:*
> 
> *"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"*
> 
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> 
> 
> *Your fantasyland bullshit won't hunt.*
Click to expand...

LOL...

Go tell the Berbers that they are Arabs!!!

They will shoot you !!!

ROTFLOL

Jews coming from Europe are returning Jews to their ancient homeland.  No invasion, simply going home.

Home is where the heart is  

Keep repeating your debunked "science" until you fully believe it


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians.  They are the descendants  indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived.  The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are:
> 
> 1)  Arabs from Arabia, no matter how much you wish to lie for them, they will get very mad at you for saying that they are NOT Arabs.
> Especially those who now call themselves Palestinians.
> They never did not call themselves Arabs.
> 
> 2)  Most of the Arabs who now live in the former Mandate for Palestine immigrated into the area from the countries where they were living in, including in Arabia.
> 
> 3) No, the "Palestinians" are not descendants of the people who lived on ancient Canaan before the Jews.
> Why, because the Jews are composed of most of the people who lived in that area 3800 years ago.
> 
> The Jewish People/Nation are definitely BACK where they came from.
> Ancient Canaan.  Israel.  Judea.  Israel again.
> 
> Same area.  Same place.  Same Nation.  Same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as the ancient Hebrews would say
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs are Arabic speaking people.  Arabs can be ethnically Berbers, as in the Maghreb, North Africans as in Egypt or generally Levantine as the Palestians, Lebanese etc. It would be like claiming Hispanics are all from Spain.
> 
> As far as the Palestinians:
> 
> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin...."*
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
> 
> 
> As far as the European Jews that invaded and colonized Palestine, they are European*:*
> 
> *"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"*
> 
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> 
> 
> *Your fantasyland bullshit won't hunt.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL...
> 
> Go tell the Berbers that they are Arabs!!!
> 
> They will shoot you !!!
> 
> ROTFLOL
> 
> Jews coming from Europe are returning Jews to their ancient homeland.  No invasion, simply going home.
> 
> Home is where the heart is
> 
> Keep repeating your debunked "science" until you fully believe it
Click to expand...


Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab. I lived in Tunisia for 3 years, don't try your stupid crap on me.  There is nothing "debunked" about the science. What has long been debunked is your Zionist bullshit.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule,  represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate.  21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350.  To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine.  The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine.  The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with* native and immigrant Arabs and Jews*, *who were both *from  Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.
> 
> And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *"CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> February 21st, 1922.
> 
> Sir,
> 
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—
> *
> *Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.
> 
> We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
> *
> *It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
> Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.
> 
> Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.
> 
> We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.
> 
> We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
> (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
> 
> (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
> 
> (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
> *
> *For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.
Click to expand...


Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.

My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.

There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

*If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation. *


----------



## rylah

Lol montelatici link as usual contradicts his narrative:


Palestine inhabited by a mixed population

_From the time the Arabians, along with their non-Arabian recruits, entered Palestine and Syria, they found and themselves added to what was "ethnologically a chaos of all the possible human combinations to which, when Palestine became a land of pilgrimage, a new admixture was added."1 *Among the peoples who have been counted as "indigenous Palestinian Arabs" are Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.*

John of Wurzburg lists for the middle era of the kingdom, Latins, Germans, Hungarians, Scots, Navarese, Bretons, English, Franks, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, Syrians, Persian Nestorians, Indians,Egyptians, Copts, Maronites and natives from the Nile Delta. The list might be much extended, for it was the period of the great self-willed city-states in Europe, and Amalfi, Pisans, Genoese, Venetians, and Marseillais, who had quarters in all the bigger cities, owned villages, and had trading rights, would, in all probability, have submitted to any of the above designations, only under pressure. Besides all these, Norsemen, Danes, Frisians, Tartars, Jews, Arabs, Russians, Nubians, and Samaritans, can be safely added to the greatest human agglomeration drawn together in one small area of the globe."2

*Greeks fled the Muslim rule in Greece, and landed in Palestine. By the mid-seventeenth century, the Greeks lived everywhere in the Holy Land--constituting about twenty percent of the population-and their authority dominated the villages.3*
Between 1750 and 1766 Jaffa had been rebuilt, and had some five hundred houses. Turks, Arabs, Greeks and Armenians and a solitary Latin monk lived there, to attend to the wants of the thousands of pilgrims who had to be temporarily housed in the port before proceeding to Jerusalem.4...._


----------



## rylah

Look at the list of languages just among the Muslims in 1931:
Afghan 
Albanian 
Arabic 
Bosnian 
Chinese 
Circassian 
English 
French 
German 
Greek 
Gypsy 
Hebrew 
Hindustani 
Indian dialects 
Javanese 
Kurdish 
Persian 
Portuguese 
Russian 
Spanish 
Sudanese 
Takrurian 
Turkish


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine.  The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine.  The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with* native and immigrant Arabs and Jews*, *who were both *from  Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.
> 
> And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *"CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> February 21st, 1922.
> 
> Sir,
> 
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—
> *
> *Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.
> 
> We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
> *
> *It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
> Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.
> 
> Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.
> 
> We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.
> 
> We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
> (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
> 
> (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
> 
> (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
> *
> *For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.
> 
> My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.
> 
> There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.
> 
> *If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation. *
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.


Could it be that the Arabs did not kick them out but the Jews did.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine.  The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine.  The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with* native and immigrant Arabs and Jews*, *who were both *from  Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.
> 
> And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *"CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> February 21st, 1922.
> 
> Sir,
> 
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—
> *
> *Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.
> 
> We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
> *
> *It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
> Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.
> 
> Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.
> 
> We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.
> 
> We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
> (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
> 
> (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
> 
> (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
> *
> *For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.
> 
> My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.
> 
> There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.
> 
> *If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be that the Arabs did not kick them out but the Jews did.
Click to expand...


How did it work for them under the Hashemites in Jordan?
How did it work for the Jews?

I mean this  notion that we should be ruled by an administrator from Mecca and a bunch of royal oligarchs sounds like feudalism, even if disguised under regional democracy the system is still not of independence but of centralized Arab confederation at best.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with* native and immigrant Arabs and Jews*, *who were both *from  Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.
> 
> And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *"CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> February 21st, 1922.
> 
> Sir,
> 
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—
> *
> *Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.
> 
> We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
> *
> *It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
> Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.
> 
> Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.
> 
> We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.
> 
> We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
> (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
> 
> (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
> 
> (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
> *
> *For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.
> 
> My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.
> 
> There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.
> 
> *If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be that the Arabs did not kick them out but the Jews did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did it work for them under the Hashemites in Jordan?
> How did it work for the Jews?
> 
> I mean this  notion that we should be ruled by an administrator from Mecca and a bunch of royal oligarchs sounds like feudalism, even if disguised under regional democracy the system is still not of independence but of centralized Arab confederation at best.
Click to expand...

You can blame Britain for its appointed government in Jordan.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *"CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> 
> HOTEL CECIL,
> London, W.C.,
> February 21st, 1922.
> 
> Sir,
> 
> We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—
> *
> *Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.
> 
> We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.
> *
> *It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
> Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.
> 
> Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.
> 
> We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.
> 
> We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
> (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
> 
> (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
> 
> (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
> *
> *For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.
> 
> My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.
> 
> There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.
> 
> *If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could it be that the Arabs did not kick them out but the Jews did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did it work for them under the Hashemites in Jordan?
> How did it work for the Jews?
> 
> I mean this  notion that we should be ruled by an administrator from Mecca and a bunch of royal oligarchs sounds like feudalism, even if disguised under regional democracy the system is still not of independence but of centralized Arab confederation at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can blame Britain for its appointed government in Jordan.
Click to expand...


I don't blame Israel for freeing me from same Hashemite rule,  from making it a Greater Syria type of district dependent on Mecca and its' oligarchy.

If not for Israel it would be the same Jordan/Syria here.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.



So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?  

PAHLEEEEESE.


----------



## admonit

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?
> 
> PAHLEEEEESE.
Click to expand...

 If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?
> 
> PAHLEEEEESE.
Click to expand...


They are not Arabian. They are Berbers who self-identify as Arabs, Arabic speaking people.  Just as native Bolivians are Spanish-speaking native-Americans who self-identify as Hispanic, but are not Spanish.

Get it now?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?
> 
> PAHLEEEEESE.
Click to expand...

And besides that, what does it matter?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?
> 
> PAHLEEEEESE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And besides that, what does it matter?
Click to expand...



It doesn't matter the slightest bit to me. I'm the one who believes both people should have self-determination. I think all this talk of DNA and who identifies as whom and who came here from which place, when and why is stupid and rather unsavoury.

The Jewish people have been there for thousands of years. This is obvious historical fact.

The Arab Palestinians have been there for many, many hundreds of years. This is also obvious historical fact.

They both deserve States. Just get ON with it.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?
> 
> PAHLEEEEESE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And besides that, what does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter the slightest bit to me. I'm the one who believes both people should have self-determination. I think all this talk of DNA and who identifies as whom and who came here from which place, when and why is stupid and rather unsavoury.
> 
> The Jewish people have been there for thousands of years. This is obvious historical fact.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have been there for many, many hundreds of years. This is also obvious historical fact.
> 
> They both deserve States. Just get ON with it.
Click to expand...


The Jewish people of the area and others converted to Christianity and then most to Islam.  The Palestinian's ancestors are those people.  Don't you get it.  The Zionist colonists are Europeans.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?
> 
> PAHLEEEEESE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And besides that, what does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter the slightest bit to me. I'm the one who believes both people should have self-determination. I think all this talk of DNA and who identifies as whom and who came here from which place, when and why is stupid and rather unsavoury.
> 
> The Jewish people have been there for thousands of years. This is obvious historical fact.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have been there for many, many hundreds of years. This is also obvious historical fact.
> 
> They both deserve States. Just get ON with it.
Click to expand...

Where are the Palestinians supposed to have a state when they are not allowed to return to their homes?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?
> 
> PAHLEEEEESE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And besides that, what does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter the slightest bit to me. I'm the one who believes both people should have self-determination. I think all this talk of DNA and who identifies as whom and who came here from which place, when and why is stupid and rather unsavoury.
> 
> The Jewish people have been there for thousands of years. This is obvious historical fact.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have been there for many, many hundreds of years. This is also obvious historical fact.
> 
> They both deserve States. Just get ON with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people of the area and others converted to Christianity and then most to Islam.  The Palestinian's ancestors are those people.  Don't you get it.  The Zionist colonists are Europeans.
Click to expand...






P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?
> 
> PAHLEEEEESE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And besides that, what does it matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter the slightest bit to me. I'm the one who believes both people should have self-determination. I think all this talk of DNA and who identifies as whom and who came here from which place, when and why is stupid and rather unsavoury.
> 
> The Jewish people have been there for thousands of years. This is obvious historical fact.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have been there for many, many hundreds of years. This is also obvious historical fact.
> 
> They both deserve States. Just get ON with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the Palestinians supposed to have a state when they are not allowed to return to their homes?
Click to expand...



The West Bank and Gaza (which is a great sacrifice on Israel's part, since the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, is the biblical heartland).  Palestinians living in Syria, Lebanon or Jordan can be absorbed into those countries and made citizens, with generous compensation packages from Israel.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Where are the Palestinians supposed to have a state when they are not allowed to return to their homes?



This isn't especially hard.  The Jewish Palestinians will have part of the territory and the Arab Palestinians will have part of the territory.  The Jewish part will be Jewish in nature and the Arab part will be Arab in nature.  There will be some Arabs living in Israel who will be required to be loyal to the Jewish State.  There will be some Jews living in Palestine who will be required to be loyal to the Arab State.  If they are unable to do that -- they get deported to the other State.  

Why is this hard?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the Palestinians supposed to have a state when they are not allowed to return to their homes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't especially hard.  The Jewish Palestinians will have part of the territory and the Arab Palestinians will have part of the territory.  The Jewish part will be Jewish in nature and the Arab part will be Arab in nature.  There will be some Arabs living in Israel who will be required to be loyal to the Jewish State.  There will be some Jews living in Palestine who will be required to be loyal to the Arab State.  If they are unable to do that -- they get deported to the other State.
> 
> Why is this hard?
Click to expand...

Will the Palestinians get their orange groves back? Will they get their farms, factories, commercial real estate, etc.?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the Palestinians supposed to have a state when they are not allowed to return to their homes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't especially hard.  The Jewish Palestinians will have part of the territory and the Arab Palestinians will have part of the territory.  The Jewish part will be Jewish in nature and the Arab part will be Arab in nature.  There will be some Arabs living in Israel who will be required to be loyal to the Jewish State.  There will be some Jews living in Palestine who will be required to be loyal to the Arab State.  If they are unable to do that -- they get deported to the other State.
> 
> Why is this hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will the Palestinians get their orange groves back? Will they get their farms, factories, commercial real estate, etc.?
Click to expand...


You are talking about compensation for lost assets.  I think everyone should be compensated for those losses.  Jews and Arabs both.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the Palestinians supposed to have a state when they are not allowed to return to their homes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't especially hard.  The Jewish Palestinians will have part of the territory and the Arab Palestinians will have part of the territory.  The Jewish part will be Jewish in nature and the Arab part will be Arab in nature.  There will be some Arabs living in Israel who will be required to be loyal to the Jewish State.  There will be some Jews living in Palestine who will be required to be loyal to the Arab State.  If they are unable to do that -- they get deported to the other State.
> 
> Why is this hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will the Palestinians get their orange groves back? Will they get their farms, factories, commercial real estate, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are talking about compensation for lost assets.  I think everyone should be compensated for those losses.  Jews and Arabs both.
Click to expand...

Actually I am talking about returning assets.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Actually I am talking about returning assets.



So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?

Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?  

See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am talking about returning assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
Click to expand...

If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am talking about returning assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
Click to expand...


Nice duck.  

WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am talking about returning assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
Click to expand...

Because it is his.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am talking about returning assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
Click to expand...


Then he won't have a problem choosing his land over Arab Palestinian self-determination in the place where he was living.  No big deal.  Nice loyal citizen of Israel.  What's the problem?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am talking about returning assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then he won't have a problem choosing his land over Arab Palestinian self-determination in the place where he was living.  No big deal.  Nice loyal citizen of Israel.  What's the problem?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the Palestinians returning. It is the right thing to do.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am talking about returning assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
Click to expand...


It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.

I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.

Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*

https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am talking about returning assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
Click to expand...


Well, we do know who owned most of the land in 1945 pursuant to the British cadastral survey:


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we do know who owned most of the land in 1945 pursuant to the British cadastral survey:
Click to expand...


How does it even argue with anything I've posted?
Arabs from Kuwait, Cairo and Damascus and other countries owned much of those lands.... little was owned by the locals. And not only Jews bought lands for Israel.

Jews bought lands in Huran as well, it doesn't mean the peasants who worked for them could now claim the Syrian govt. owns them something.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I am talking about returning assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> It's a myth that peasants owned much land,


It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we do know who owned most of the land in 1945 pursuant to the British cadastral survey:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it even argue with anything I've posted?
> Arabs from Kuwait, Cairo and Damascus and other countries owned much of those lands.... little was owned by the locals. And not only Jews bought lands for Israel.
> 
> Jews bought lands in Huran as well, it doesn't mean the peasants who worked for them could now claim the Syrian govt. owns them something.
Click to expand...


The cadastral survey registered foreign owners within "public and other" in the tables associated with the map. The Arab ownership means Palestinian Arab ownership as opposed to Palestinian Jew ownership.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we do know who owned most of the land in 1945 pursuant to the British cadastral survey:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it even argue with anything I've posted?
> Arabs from Kuwait, Cairo and Damascus and other countries owned much of those lands.... little was owned by the locals. And not only Jews bought lands for Israel.
> 
> Jews bought lands in Huran as well, it doesn't mean the peasants who worked for them could now claim the Syrian govt. owns them something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cadastral survey registered foreign owners within "public and other" in the tables associated with the map. The Arab ownership means Palestinian Arab ownership as opposed to Palestinian Jew ownership.
Click to expand...


I don't see a link - not cuts and pieces of documents like You usually do.
I know that Hadauwi manipulated many public and "other" lands to be registered as "Arab".


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So not any orange grove -- but that particular square of land orange grove.  One has to ask why?  Why that particular square of land?  And not an orange grove five miles away?  What are we trying to restore here?
> 
> Can the person be loyal to Israel?  Do they want to live, as monte so ungraciously puts it, under "Jew rule"?  Do they want to live in a Jewish land with Jewish culture and Jewish laws and Jewish language and Jewish holidays?  Why or why not?
> 
> See, you don't actually seem to be aware of it, but you can only be arguing for one of two things -- return but no Arab self-determination in part of the territory or return in order to destroy Israel from the inside.  Which are you actually arguing for?
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.
Click to expand...


Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??

Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
Click to expand...

So compile a list of Jewish owners and work from there.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we do know who owned most of the land in 1945 pursuant to the British cadastral survey:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it even argue with anything I've posted?
> Arabs from Kuwait, Cairo and Damascus and other countries owned much of those lands.... little was owned by the locals. And not only Jews bought lands for Israel.
> 
> Jews bought lands in Huran as well, it doesn't mean the peasants who worked for them could now claim the Syrian govt. owns them something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cadastral survey registered foreign owners within "public and other" in the tables associated with the map. The Arab ownership means Palestinian Arab ownership as opposed to Palestinian Jew ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a link - not cuts and pieces of documents like You usually do.
> I know that Hadauwi manipulated many public and "other" lands to be registered as "Arab".
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we do know who owned most of the land in 1945 pursuant to the British cadastral survey:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it even argue with anything I've posted?
> Arabs from Kuwait, Cairo and Damascus and other countries owned much of those lands.... little was owned by the locals. And not only Jews bought lands for Israel.
> 
> Jews bought lands in Huran as well, it doesn't mean the peasants who worked for them could now claim the Syrian govt. owns them something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cadastral survey registered foreign owners within "public and other" in the tables associated with the map. The Arab ownership means Palestinian Arab ownership as opposed to Palestinian Jew ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a link - not cuts and pieces of documents like You usually do.
> I know that Hadauwi manipulated many public and "other" lands to be registered as "Arab".
Click to expand...


 You are just making things up to try to rationalize a false narrative, Zionist propaganda.  The UN knew exactly who owned the land. The Arab population owned 85% of the private land as late as 1945. 

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Israel has placed itself into that situation, I am not the one to cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
Click to expand...


There was little to no Arab migration to Palestine.  Quite the opposite, there was net Muslim and Christian migration out of Palestine to Egypt where there were more job opportunities given the British presence and the Suez Canal.  Prior to that most military age males had been drafted and sent to fight for Turkey in WW 1.  Most did not return to Palestine and settled in other parts of Turkey (or died). 

"(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."

A/364 of 3 September 1947*


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> You are just making things up to try to rationalize a false narrative, Zionist propaganda.  The UN knew exactly who owned the land. The Arab population owned 85% of the private land as late as 1945.
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947



Inventing nothing, “possession” is exactly what happened,since the Ottoman mess until the British came, it was mostly based on occupying a piece of land at the given time, and a lot of say so.The UN is the least reliable source on anything that happened in Palestine before it was established. When the British came many abandoned places were already inhabited by recently new comers.


Tristram goes on to present a remarkable and highly revealing description of conditions in Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River in the middle of the 19th century ---

“A few years ago, the whole Ghor was in the hands of the fellahin, and much of it cultivated for corn. Now the whole of it is in the hands of the Bedouin, who eschew all agriculture, except in a few spots *cultivated here and there by their slaves*; and with the Bedouin come lawlessness and the uprooting of all Turkish authority. No government is now acknowledged on the east side; and unless the Porte acts with greater firmness and caution than is his wont . . . *Palestine will be desolated and given up to the nomads. The same thing is now going on over the plain of Sharon, where, both in the north and south, land is going out of cultivation, and whole villages rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth.* Since the year 1838, no less than 20 villages have been thus erased from the map and the stationary population extirpated. Very rapidly the Bedouin are encroaching wherever horse can be ridden; and the Government is utterly powerless to resist them or to defend its subjects. (p. 490) “



1937 Report of the Palestine Royal Commission

“The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts . . . no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna village. . . . The area north of Jaffa . . . consisted of two distinctive parts. . . . The eastern part, in the direction of the hills, resembled in culture that of the Gaza-Jaffa area. . . . The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert. . . . The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. *Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria,* *many villages were deserted by their inhabitants. “*


Mr. Lewis French, Director of Development appointed by the British Government in 1931: 

“We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria. . . . Large areas of their lands were uncultivated and covered with weeds. There were no trees, no vegetables. The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbour these and other criminals. *The individual plots of cultivation changed hands annually.* There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbours the Bedouin.”

https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. So tell me who among the Arabs in Palestine owned the land “for centuries” and who took possession of it just prior to joined British Arab invasion?


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was little to no Arab migration to Palestine.  Quite the opposite, there was net Muslim and Christian migration out of Palestine to Egypt where there were more job opportunities given the British presence and the Suez Canal.  Prior to that most military age males had been drafted and sent to fight for Turkey in WW 1.  Most did not return to Palestine and settled in other parts of Turkey (or died).
> 
> "(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> *16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947*
Click to expand...


Ohh rubbish – that the UN made such assumptions based on British neglect in recording illegal Arab immigration is recognized even by the UNRWA:

*UNRWA Review, Information Paper No. 6 (September 1962)* : “A considerable movement of people is known to have occurred, particularly during the Second World War, years when new opportunities of employment opened up in the towns and on military works in Palestine. These wartime prospects and, generally, the higher rate of industrialization in Palestine attracted many new immigrants from the neighbouring countries, and many of them entered Palestine without their presence being officially recorded. “


Thousands of “Palestinian” Muslims as well as Christians flooded in from surrounding countries during the mandate and did so before the British-Arab invasion as well.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> WHY does the person want THAT particular orange grove?  Answer the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So compile a list of Jewish owners and work from there.
Click to expand...


This is exactly the idiocy prevailing on this subject.
Because anything that was not registered as Jewish property, automatically belongs to Arabs?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So compile a list of Jewish owners and work from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly the idiocy prevailing on this subject.
> Because anything that was not registered as Jewish property, automatically belongs to Arabs?
Click to expand...

Who are Arabs?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land, by the end of 19th century majority of them was already dispossessed by Bedouins and/or in debt to a number of major landowners. For example in Nablus by the end of the 18th century Ottomans installed dominant clans from Syria to weaken independence that resulted in a policy of allotting a piece of land for 2 years only for each family, before changing hands. During the Mandate many were  relocated to other lands under agreement and ALREADY received compensation.
> 
> I'm not saying no fallah owned a piece of land -  but it was unusual for their status.Many large landowners were people from Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait etc. To stretch that into a claim that "land inhabited and worked by Palestinian Arabs belonged to them" is a simplistic deception.
> 
> Like in a case one receives a loan from a bank. The bank is sold to a new owner, *but the customer with the loan claims the whole capital of the bank was his from the beginning.*
> 
> https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a myth that peasants owned much land,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So compile a list of Jewish owners and work from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly the idiocy prevailing on this subject.
> Because anything that was not registered as Jewish property, automatically belongs to Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are Arabs?
Click to expand...


*Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
*Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...

Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a myth that they did not. Most of the cities, towns, and villages pre date the Ottoman Empire. The land was ceased after the conquest. That land was ceded back to Palestine after WWI. That land was then returned to the original owners. Britain, the UN, and a private organization have been compiling these transfers from records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So compile a list of Jewish owners and work from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly the idiocy prevailing on this subject.
> Because anything that was not registered as Jewish property, automatically belongs to Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...
> 
> Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?
Click to expand...

"Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
> 
> 
> 
> So compile a list of Jewish owners and work from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly the idiocy prevailing on this subject.
> Because anything that was not registered as Jewish property, automatically belongs to Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...
> 
> Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.
Click to expand...


Deflection.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the villages and towns predate Arab Muslim conquest as well...*and many bear Jewish names* SO??
> 
> Sole possession is not a proof.  Villages were abandoned during Bedouin raids later to be inhabited by new migrants, same nomad Bedouins with their slaves and later Arab labor migrants from all continents.
> 
> 
> 
> So compile a list of Jewish owners and work from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly the idiocy prevailing on this subject.
> Because anything that was not registered as Jewish property, automatically belongs to Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...
> 
> Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.
Click to expand...

That's the thing...You cannot be too specific, those people were as much immigrants as many Jews at the time...but the Arab propaganda uses them to blow up the numbers:
*Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
*Christians:*
Palestine
Syria
Transiordan
Cyprus
Malta
Other Mediterranean
  Islands
Abyssinia
Egypt
Hejaz-Neid
Iraq
Other Arabian
  Territories
Persia
Turkey
Central Asiatic
Territories
Indian Continent
Far Eastern Asia
Algeria
Morocco
Tripoli
Tunis
Other African
  Territories
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
France
Germany
Gibraltar
Greece
Holland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
U.S.S.R.
Yugoslavia
Canada
U.S.A.
Central & South
  America
Australia


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So compile a list of Jewish owners and work from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the idiocy prevailing on this subject.
> Because anything that was not registered as Jewish property, automatically belongs to Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...
> 
> Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing...You cannot be too specific, those people were as much immigrants as many Jews at the time...but the Arab propaganda uses them to blow up the numbers:
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Christians:*
> Palestine
> Syria
> Transiordan
> Cyprus
> Malta
> Other Mediterranean
> Islands
> Abyssinia
> Egypt
> Hejaz-Neid
> Iraq
> Other Arabian
> Territories
> Persia
> Turkey
> Central Asiatic
> Territories
> Indian Continent
> Far Eastern Asia
> Algeria
> Morocco
> Tripoli
> Tunis
> Other African
> Territories
> Albania
> Austria
> Belgium
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Denmark
> France
> Germany
> Gibraltar
> Greece
> Holland
> Italy
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> Norway
> Poland
> Portugal
> Rumania
> Spain
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> United Kingdom
> U.S.S.R.
> Yugoslavia
> Canada
> U.S.A.
> Central & South
> America
> Australia
Click to expand...

WOW, looks  like the US of A. How bad can that be?

So, when you say "Arabs" I am not sure who you are talking about.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the idiocy prevailing on this subject.
> Because anything that was not registered as Jewish property, automatically belongs to Arabs?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...
> 
> Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing...You cannot be too specific, those people were as much immigrants as many Jews at the time...but the Arab propaganda uses them to blow up the numbers:
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Christians:*
> Palestine
> Syria
> Transiordan
> Cyprus
> Malta
> Other Mediterranean
> Islands
> Abyssinia
> Egypt
> Hejaz-Neid
> Iraq
> Other Arabian
> Territories
> Persia
> Turkey
> Central Asiatic
> Territories
> Indian Continent
> Far Eastern Asia
> Algeria
> Morocco
> Tripoli
> Tunis
> Other African
> Territories
> Albania
> Austria
> Belgium
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Denmark
> France
> Germany
> Gibraltar
> Greece
> Holland
> Italy
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> Norway
> Poland
> Portugal
> Rumania
> Spain
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> United Kingdom
> U.S.S.R.
> Yugoslavia
> Canada
> U.S.A.
> Central & South
> America
> Australia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, looks  like the US of A. How bad can that be?
> 
> So, when you say "Arabs" I am not sure who you are talking about.
Click to expand...



*That's exactly my point, Arabs in Palestine were as much immigrants as many Jews. *
One example of such _"Palestinian"_ Arabs is the Musarwa clan, the biggest Arab family in Israel, or the Misr village- all inhabited by Bedouins and Egyptians from Muhammad Ali Pasha's army.

The notion that they were original owners to whom You (or the UN) automatically assign lands based on untitled claims, is even more ridiculous than British demanding a right of return to US farms, or even worse- demanding it from some indigenous American reservation, which in this  case is Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are Arabs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...
> 
> Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing...You cannot be too specific, those people were as much immigrants as many Jews at the time...but the Arab propaganda uses them to blow up the numbers:
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Christians:*
> Palestine
> Syria
> Transiordan
> Cyprus
> Malta
> Other Mediterranean
> Islands
> Abyssinia
> Egypt
> Hejaz-Neid
> Iraq
> Other Arabian
> Territories
> Persia
> Turkey
> Central Asiatic
> Territories
> Indian Continent
> Far Eastern Asia
> Algeria
> Morocco
> Tripoli
> Tunis
> Other African
> Territories
> Albania
> Austria
> Belgium
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Denmark
> France
> Germany
> Gibraltar
> Greece
> Holland
> Italy
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> Norway
> Poland
> Portugal
> Rumania
> Spain
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> United Kingdom
> U.S.S.R.
> Yugoslavia
> Canada
> U.S.A.
> Central & South
> America
> Australia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, looks  like the US of A. How bad can that be?
> 
> So, when you say "Arabs" I am not sure who you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly my point, Arabs in Palestine were as much immigrants as many Jews. *
> One example of such _"Palestinian"_ Arabs is the Musarwa clan, the biggest Arab family in Israel, or the Misr village- all inhabited by Bedouins and Egyptians from Muhammad Ali Pasha's army.
> 
> The notion that they were original owners to whom You (or the UN) automatically assign lands based on untitled claims, is even more ridiculous than British demanding a right of return to US farms, or even worse- demanding it from some indigenous American reservation, which in this  case is Israel.
Click to expand...

Societies evolve over time. As long as nothing is forced there is no problem. The creation of Palestine followed international law. Yes, the territory was divided. Yes, the new states were defined by international borders. However, the normal residents of each defined territory automatically became citizens of their respective new state. They became the sovereigns within their territory. They are the ones who could set policies like immigration and land ownership. That is the rule of state succession that continues today.

There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...
> 
> Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?
> 
> 
> 
> "Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing...You cannot be too specific, those people were as much immigrants as many Jews at the time...but the Arab propaganda uses them to blow up the numbers:
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Christians:*
> Palestine
> Syria
> Transiordan
> Cyprus
> Malta
> Other Mediterranean
> Islands
> Abyssinia
> Egypt
> Hejaz-Neid
> Iraq
> Other Arabian
> Territories
> Persia
> Turkey
> Central Asiatic
> Territories
> Indian Continent
> Far Eastern Asia
> Algeria
> Morocco
> Tripoli
> Tunis
> Other African
> Territories
> Albania
> Austria
> Belgium
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Denmark
> France
> Germany
> Gibraltar
> Greece
> Holland
> Italy
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> Norway
> Poland
> Portugal
> Rumania
> Spain
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> United Kingdom
> U.S.S.R.
> Yugoslavia
> Canada
> U.S.A.
> Central & South
> America
> Australia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, looks  like the US of A. How bad can that be?
> 
> So, when you say "Arabs" I am not sure who you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly my point, Arabs in Palestine were as much immigrants as many Jews. *
> One example of such _"Palestinian"_ Arabs is the Musarwa clan, the biggest Arab family in Israel, or the Misr village- all inhabited by Bedouins and Egyptians from Muhammad Ali Pasha's army.
> 
> The notion that they were original owners to whom You (or the UN) automatically assign lands based on untitled claims, is even more ridiculous than British demanding a right of return to US farms, or even worse- demanding it from some indigenous American reservation, which in this  case is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Societies evolve over time. As long as nothing is forced there is no problem. The creation of Palestine followed international law. Yes, the territory was divided. Yes, the new states were defined by international borders. However, the normal residents of each defined territory automatically became citizens of their respective new state. They became the sovereigns within their territory. They are the ones who could set policies like immigration and land ownership. That is the rule of state succession that continues today.
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
Click to expand...


That's the same baseless tirade you litter among various threads. 
Identify when you're invented "state of Pally'land" ever existed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing...You cannot be too specific, those people were as much immigrants as many Jews at the time...but the Arab propaganda uses them to blow up the numbers:
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Christians:*
> Palestine
> Syria
> Transiordan
> Cyprus
> Malta
> Other Mediterranean
> Islands
> Abyssinia
> Egypt
> Hejaz-Neid
> Iraq
> Other Arabian
> Territories
> Persia
> Turkey
> Central Asiatic
> Territories
> Indian Continent
> Far Eastern Asia
> Algeria
> Morocco
> Tripoli
> Tunis
> Other African
> Territories
> Albania
> Austria
> Belgium
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Denmark
> France
> Germany
> Gibraltar
> Greece
> Holland
> Italy
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> Norway
> Poland
> Portugal
> Rumania
> Spain
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> United Kingdom
> U.S.S.R.
> Yugoslavia
> Canada
> U.S.A.
> Central & South
> America
> Australia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, looks  like the US of A. How bad can that be?
> 
> So, when you say "Arabs" I am not sure who you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly my point, Arabs in Palestine were as much immigrants as many Jews. *
> One example of such _"Palestinian"_ Arabs is the Musarwa clan, the biggest Arab family in Israel, or the Misr village- all inhabited by Bedouins and Egyptians from Muhammad Ali Pasha's army.
> 
> The notion that they were original owners to whom You (or the UN) automatically assign lands based on untitled claims, is even more ridiculous than British demanding a right of return to US farms, or even worse- demanding it from some indigenous American reservation, which in this  case is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Societies evolve over time. As long as nothing is forced there is no problem. The creation of Palestine followed international law. Yes, the territory was divided. Yes, the new states were defined by international borders. However, the normal residents of each defined territory automatically became citizens of their respective new state. They became the sovereigns within their territory. They are the ones who could set policies like immigration and land ownership. That is the rule of state succession that continues today.
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the same baseless tirade you litter among various threads.
> Identify when you're invented "state of Pally'land" ever existed.
Click to expand...

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing...You cannot be too specific, those people were as much immigrants as many Jews at the time...but the Arab propaganda uses them to blow up the numbers:
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Christians:*
> Palestine
> Syria
> Transiordan
> Cyprus
> Malta
> Other Mediterranean
> Islands
> Abyssinia
> Egypt
> Hejaz-Neid
> Iraq
> Other Arabian
> Territories
> Persia
> Turkey
> Central Asiatic
> Territories
> Indian Continent
> Far Eastern Asia
> Algeria
> Morocco
> Tripoli
> Tunis
> Other African
> Territories
> Albania
> Austria
> Belgium
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Denmark
> France
> Germany
> Gibraltar
> Greece
> Holland
> Italy
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> Norway
> Poland
> Portugal
> Rumania
> Spain
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> United Kingdom
> U.S.S.R.
> Yugoslavia
> Canada
> U.S.A.
> Central & South
> America
> Australia
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, looks  like the US of A. How bad can that be?
> 
> So, when you say "Arabs" I am not sure who you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly my point, Arabs in Palestine were as much immigrants as many Jews. *
> One example of such _"Palestinian"_ Arabs is the Musarwa clan, the biggest Arab family in Israel, or the Misr village- all inhabited by Bedouins and Egyptians from Muhammad Ali Pasha's army.
> 
> The notion that they were original owners to whom You (or the UN) automatically assign lands based on untitled claims, is even more ridiculous than British demanding a right of return to US farms, or even worse- demanding it from some indigenous American reservation, which in this  case is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Societies evolve over time. As long as nothing is forced there is no problem. The creation of Palestine followed international law. Yes, the territory was divided. Yes, the new states were defined by international borders. However, the normal residents of each defined territory automatically became citizens of their respective new state. They became the sovereigns within their territory. They are the ones who could set policies like immigration and land ownership. That is the rule of state succession that continues today.
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the same baseless tirade you litter among various threads.
> Identify when you're invented "state of Pally'land" ever existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
Click to expand...



It is immaterial whether Palestine is a state or not.  New states can be created, such as South Sudan.  The point is that Palestine will never become a fully functioning state if it does not recognize Israel as a state, and agree to live at peace with it.  "Palestine" will lose more and more (land, rights, etc.) and Israel will gain more and more, until the Palestinians are able to do that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, looks  like the US of A. How bad can that be?
> 
> So, when you say "Arabs" I am not sure who you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly my point, Arabs in Palestine were as much immigrants as many Jews. *
> One example of such _"Palestinian"_ Arabs is the Musarwa clan, the biggest Arab family in Israel, or the Misr village- all inhabited by Bedouins and Egyptians from Muhammad Ali Pasha's army.
> 
> The notion that they were original owners to whom You (or the UN) automatically assign lands based on untitled claims, is even more ridiculous than British demanding a right of return to US farms, or even worse- demanding it from some indigenous American reservation, which in this  case is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Societies evolve over time. As long as nothing is forced there is no problem. The creation of Palestine followed international law. Yes, the territory was divided. Yes, the new states were defined by international borders. However, the normal residents of each defined territory automatically became citizens of their respective new state. They became the sovereigns within their territory. They are the ones who could set policies like immigration and land ownership. That is the rule of state succession that continues today.
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the same baseless tirade you litter among various threads.
> Identify when you're invented "state of Pally'land" ever existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is immaterial whether Palestine is a state or not.  New states can be created, such as South Sudan.  The point is that Palestine will never become a fully functioning state if it does not recognize Israel as a state, and agree to live at peace with it.  "Palestine" will lose more and more (land, rights, etc.) and Israel will gain more and more, until the Palestinians are able to do that.
Click to expand...




ForeverYoung436 said:


> Palestine will never become a fully functioning state if it does not recognize Israel as a state


Why not?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Why not?



Because eternal war between a neighbor who is more powerful and more capable than you is a fool's errand.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Moslems :*Palestine,Syria, Transiordan, Cyprus, Egypt, Hejaz-Nejd, Iraq, Yemen , Other Arabian Territories, Persia,  Turkey,  Central Asiatic Territories, Indian Continent, Far Eastern Asia, Algeria,Morocco,Tripoli, Tunis ,Other African Territories, Albania, France, Greece , Spain , United Kingdom, U.S.S.R. , U.S.A. , Central & South  America , Australia...
> 
> Q. Should we go though the Christians' list of origin countries?
> 
> 
> 
> "Arabs" in this context is meaningless. You have to be more specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing...You cannot be too specific, those people were as much immigrants as many Jews at the time...but the Arab propaganda uses them to blow up the numbers:
> *Birthplaces of Inhabitants of Jerusalem. District circa 1931*
> *Christians:*
> Palestine
> Syria
> Transiordan
> Cyprus
> Malta
> Other Mediterranean
> Islands
> Abyssinia
> Egypt
> Hejaz-Neid
> Iraq
> Other Arabian
> Territories
> Persia
> Turkey
> Central Asiatic
> Territories
> Indian Continent
> Far Eastern Asia
> Algeria
> Morocco
> Tripoli
> Tunis
> Other African
> Territories
> Albania
> Austria
> Belgium
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Denmark
> France
> Germany
> Gibraltar
> Greece
> Holland
> Italy
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> Norway
> Poland
> Portugal
> Rumania
> Spain
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> United Kingdom
> U.S.S.R.
> Yugoslavia
> Canada
> U.S.A.
> Central & South
> America
> Australia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, looks  like the US of A. How bad can that be?
> 
> So, when you say "Arabs" I am not sure who you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly my point, Arabs in Palestine were as much immigrants as many Jews. *
> One example of such _"Palestinian"_ Arabs is the Musarwa clan, the biggest Arab family in Israel, or the Misr village- all inhabited by Bedouins and Egyptians from Muhammad Ali Pasha's army.
> 
> The notion that they were original owners to whom You (or the UN) automatically assign lands based on untitled claims, is even more ridiculous than British demanding a right of return to US farms, or even worse- demanding it from some indigenous American reservation, which in this  case is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Societies evolve over time. As long as nothing is forced there is no problem. The creation of Palestine followed international law. Yes, the territory was divided. Yes, the new states were defined by international borders. However, the normal residents of each defined territory automatically became citizens of their respective new state. They became the sovereigns within their territory. They are the ones who could set policies like immigration and land ownership. That is the rule of state succession that continues today.
Click to expand...


All good and dandy, even looks good on the paper - none of that happened, it's a phantom based on some beauracratic interpretation written on another continent. *Mind You nobody forced the Arabs help Britain invade Palestine.*

The only one who was sovereign in that territory was the British empire, and the people saw themselves as citizens of a  British government, there was no other state.That's exactly why both parties opposed it. Neither of the them could set any policies, and both had opposing visions of what Palestine should be.


Palestine was created with the mandate to make it a National Homeland for the Jews.
The succession continues today through Israel, as the only effective sovereign state that took part in international agreements with the neighbors.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.



Really?? 
Then maybe You can tell me when the population exchange ever STOPPED in Palestine?


Bosnian Palestinians

Some Bosnian movement to Palestine occurred when Bosnian Muslim soldiers were brought to Palestine in the late 1800s to provide reinforcements for the Ottoman army.[1][3]

More substantial movement occurred after 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire, ruled by the House of Habsburg, occupied Bosnia. Bosnian Muslim emigration continued through this period, escalating after the Austro-Hungarian's 1908 annexation of Bosnia. Many emigrated to parts of what is now modern Turkey, while a smaller number settled in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.

In Palestine, these Bosnian emigrants settled predominantly in villages in the northern parts of the present day West Bank and Israel: Caesarea (Qisarya), Yanun, Nablus and Tulkarem.[1][2][3] Their descendants still live in these villages, their Bosnian heritage reflected in the Arab surname of Bushnak.[3]

The Bosnian Muslim immigrants who settled in Caesarea in 1878 built two mosques, joining other Muslim immigrants from Morocco, Algeria, Crimea, the Caucasus, and Turkestan. *These Slavic speaking immigrants eventually assimilated into the Arab population of Palestine.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??
> Then maybe You can tell me when the population exchange ever STOPPED in Palestine?
> 
> 
> Bosnian Palestinians
> 
> Some Bosnian movement to Palestine occurred when Bosnian Muslim soldiers were brought to Palestine in the late 1800s to provide reinforcements for the Ottoman army.[1][3]
> 
> More substantial movement occurred after 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire, ruled by the House of Habsburg, occupied Bosnia. Bosnian Muslim emigration continued through this period, escalating after the Austro-Hungarian's 1908 annexation of Bosnia. Many emigrated to parts of what is now modern Turkey, while a smaller number settled in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.
> 
> In Palestine, these Bosnian emigrants settled predominantly in villages in the northern parts of the present day West Bank and Israel: Caesarea (Qisarya), Yanun, Nablus and Tulkarem.[1][2][3] Their descendants still live in these villages, their Bosnian heritage reflected in the Arab surname of Bushnak.[3]
> 
> The Bosnian Muslim immigrants who settled in Caesarea in 1878 built two mosques, joining other Muslim immigrants from Morocco, Algeria, Crimea, the Caucasus, and Turkestan. *These Slavic speaking immigrants eventually assimilated into the Arab population of Palestine.*
Click to expand...

OK, cool.

Is there a point here?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??
> Then maybe You can tell me when the population exchange ever STOPPED in Palestine?
> 
> 
> Bosnian Palestinians
> 
> Some Bosnian movement to Palestine occurred when Bosnian Muslim soldiers were brought to Palestine in the late 1800s to provide reinforcements for the Ottoman army.[1][3]
> 
> More substantial movement occurred after 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire, ruled by the House of Habsburg, occupied Bosnia. Bosnian Muslim emigration continued through this period, escalating after the Austro-Hungarian's 1908 annexation of Bosnia. Many emigrated to parts of what is now modern Turkey, while a smaller number settled in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.
> 
> In Palestine, these Bosnian emigrants settled predominantly in villages in the northern parts of the present day West Bank and Israel: Caesarea (Qisarya), Yanun, Nablus and Tulkarem.[1][2][3] Their descendants still live in these villages, their Bosnian heritage reflected in the Arab surname of Bushnak.[3]
> 
> The Bosnian Muslim immigrants who settled in Caesarea in 1878 built two mosques, joining other Muslim immigrants from Morocco, Algeria, Crimea, the Caucasus, and Turkestan. *These Slavic speaking immigrants eventually assimilated into the Arab population of Palestine.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, cool.
> 
> Is there a point here?
Click to expand...


Now tell me why would UNRWA use a 2 year bar residence?

I thought all Palestinians were citizens of that state since 1924, and what about Jewish refugees who though been resettled in Israel, as many Palestinians in the West are not counted as refugees from lands in Houran and Jordan they owned?

Should they have the same attitude of - until You give me that grove I have a right to kill You because compensation (yeah form Jordan) is not good enough?

This far goes Your argument.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.



Great! Is that a suggestion?
Give me Jerusalem, and I'm willing to switch.

What do You think Arabs prefer the whole of Jordan or the whole of Israel?
...oh the sad irony.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??
> Then maybe You can tell me when the population exchange ever STOPPED in Palestine?
> 
> 
> Bosnian Palestinians
> 
> Some Bosnian movement to Palestine occurred when Bosnian Muslim soldiers were brought to Palestine in the late 1800s to provide reinforcements for the Ottoman army.[1][3]
> 
> More substantial movement occurred after 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire, ruled by the House of Habsburg, occupied Bosnia. Bosnian Muslim emigration continued through this period, escalating after the Austro-Hungarian's 1908 annexation of Bosnia. Many emigrated to parts of what is now modern Turkey, while a smaller number settled in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.
> 
> In Palestine, these Bosnian emigrants settled predominantly in villages in the northern parts of the present day West Bank and Israel: Caesarea (Qisarya), Yanun, Nablus and Tulkarem.[1][2][3] Their descendants still live in these villages, their Bosnian heritage reflected in the Arab surname of Bushnak.[3]
> 
> The Bosnian Muslim immigrants who settled in Caesarea in 1878 built two mosques, joining other Muslim immigrants from Morocco, Algeria, Crimea, the Caucasus, and Turkestan. *These Slavic speaking immigrants eventually assimilated into the Arab population of Palestine.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, cool.
> 
> Is there a point here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now tell me why would UNRWA use a 2 year bar residence?
> 
> I thought all Palestinians were citizens of that state since 1924, and what about Jewish refugees who though been resettled in Israel, as many Palestinians in the West are not counted as refugees from lands in Houran and Jordan they owned?
> 
> Should they have the same attitude of - until You give me that grove I have a right to kill You because compensation (yeah form Jordan) is not good enough?
> 
> This far goes Your argument.
Click to expand...

UNRWA is an aid agency. They do not define who is a refugee. They only define who needs aid.

Israel absorbed all of those refugees because it needs all the Jews it can find.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Is that a suggestion?
> Give me Jerusalem, and I'm willing to switch.
> 
> What do You think Arabs prefer the whole of Jordan or the whole of Israel?
> ...oh the sad irony.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Which Arabs are you talking about?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??
> Then maybe You can tell me when the population exchange ever STOPPED in Palestine?
> 
> 
> Bosnian Palestinians
> 
> Some Bosnian movement to Palestine occurred when Bosnian Muslim soldiers were brought to Palestine in the late 1800s to provide reinforcements for the Ottoman army.[1][3]
> 
> More substantial movement occurred after 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire, ruled by the House of Habsburg, occupied Bosnia. Bosnian Muslim emigration continued through this period, escalating after the Austro-Hungarian's 1908 annexation of Bosnia. Many emigrated to parts of what is now modern Turkey, while a smaller number settled in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.
> 
> In Palestine, these Bosnian emigrants settled predominantly in villages in the northern parts of the present day West Bank and Israel: Caesarea (Qisarya), Yanun, Nablus and Tulkarem.[1][2][3] Their descendants still live in these villages, their Bosnian heritage reflected in the Arab surname of Bushnak.[3]
> 
> The Bosnian Muslim immigrants who settled in Caesarea in 1878 built two mosques, joining other Muslim immigrants from Morocco, Algeria, Crimea, the Caucasus, and Turkestan. *These Slavic speaking immigrants eventually assimilated into the Arab population of Palestine.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, cool.
> 
> Is there a point here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now tell me why would UNRWA use a 2 year bar residence?
> 
> I thought all Palestinians were citizens of that state since 1924, and what about Jewish refugees who though been resettled in Israel, as many Palestinians in the West are not counted as refugees from lands in Houran and Jordan they owned?
> 
> Should they have the same attitude of - until You give me that grove I have a right to kill You because compensation (yeah form Jordan) is not good enough?
> 
> This far goes Your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UNRWA is an aid agency. They do not define who is a refugee. They only define who needs aid.
> 
> Israel absorbed all of those refugees because it needs all the Jews it can find.
Click to expand...


Actually, UNRWA is a bloated, superfluous Islamic terrorist shill that should be dismantled.


Report: UNRWA teachers incite Jihadist terrorism & antisemitism - UN Watch


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Is that a suggestion?
> Give me Jerusalem, and I'm willing to switch.
> 
> What do You think Arabs prefer the whole of Jordan or the whole of Israel?
> ...oh the sad irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Which Arabs are you talking about?
Click to expand...

That's the thing I don't understand as well,

You say Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians are natural Palestinians.
Yet once those same immigrants end up back in Jordan and Lebanon they are somewhat different.

Explain why Arab immigrants and refugees cannot be resettled in countries where they have full sovereignty around the block they moved from?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no immigration before this time. Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really??
> Then maybe You can tell me when the population exchange ever STOPPED in Palestine?
> 
> 
> Bosnian Palestinians
> 
> Some Bosnian movement to Palestine occurred when Bosnian Muslim soldiers were brought to Palestine in the late 1800s to provide reinforcements for the Ottoman army.[1][3]
> 
> More substantial movement occurred after 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire, ruled by the House of Habsburg, occupied Bosnia. Bosnian Muslim emigration continued through this period, escalating after the Austro-Hungarian's 1908 annexation of Bosnia. Many emigrated to parts of what is now modern Turkey, while a smaller number settled in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan.
> 
> In Palestine, these Bosnian emigrants settled predominantly in villages in the northern parts of the present day West Bank and Israel: Caesarea (Qisarya), Yanun, Nablus and Tulkarem.[1][2][3] Their descendants still live in these villages, their Bosnian heritage reflected in the Arab surname of Bushnak.[3]
> 
> The Bosnian Muslim immigrants who settled in Caesarea in 1878 built two mosques, joining other Muslim immigrants from Morocco, Algeria, Crimea, the Caucasus, and Turkestan. *These Slavic speaking immigrants eventually assimilated into the Arab population of Palestine.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, cool.
> 
> Is there a point here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now tell me why would UNRWA use a 2 year bar residence?
> 
> I thought all Palestinians were citizens of that state since 1924, and what about Jewish refugees who though been resettled in Israel, as many Palestinians in the West are not counted as refugees from lands in Houran and Jordan they owned?
> 
> Should they have the same attitude of - until You give me that grove I have a right to kill You because compensation (yeah form Jordan) is not good enough?
> 
> This far goes Your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UNRWA is an aid agency. They do not define who is a refugee. They only define who needs aid.
> 
> Israel absorbed all of those refugees because it needs all the Jews it can find.
Click to expand...


Did You hear about any Jew who fled from Syria and Lebanon to the US still receiving any aid from UNRWA, did they ever?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Is that a suggestion?
> Give me Jerusalem, and I'm willing to switch.
> 
> What do You think Arabs prefer the whole of Jordan or the whole of Israel?
> ...oh the sad irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Which Arabs are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing I don't understand as well,
> 
> You say Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians are natural Palestinians.
> Yet once those same immigrants end up back in Jordan and Lebanon they are somewhat different.
> 
> Explain why Arab immigrants and refugees cannot be resettled in countries where they have full sovereignty around the block they moved from?
Click to expand...

You are taking what I said out of context.

No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Is that a suggestion?
> Give me Jerusalem, and I'm willing to switch.
> 
> What do You think Arabs prefer the whole of Jordan or the whole of Israel?
> ...oh the sad irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Which Arabs are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing I don't understand as well,
> 
> You say Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians are natural Palestinians.
> Yet once those same immigrants end up back in Jordan and Lebanon they are somewhat different.
> 
> Explain why Arab immigrants and refugees cannot be resettled in countries where they have full sovereignty around the block they moved from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> 
> No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.
Click to expand...


So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from Amman to Jaffa was the same as moving from Albany to Buffalo. It was within the same territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Is that a suggestion?
> Give me Jerusalem, and I'm willing to switch.
> 
> What do You think Arabs prefer the whole of Jordan or the whole of Israel?
> ...oh the sad irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Which Arabs are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing I don't understand as well,
> 
> You say Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians are natural Palestinians.
> Yet once those same immigrants end up back in Jordan and Lebanon they are somewhat different.
> 
> Explain why Arab immigrants and refugees cannot be resettled in countries where they have full sovereignty around the block they moved from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> 
> No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
Click to expand...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Great! Is that a suggestion?
> Give me Jerusalem, and I'm willing to switch.
> 
> What do You think Arabs prefer the whole of Jordan or the whole of Israel?
> ...oh the sad irony.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Which Arabs are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing I don't understand as well,
> 
> You say Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians are natural Palestinians.
> Yet once those same immigrants end up back in Jordan and Lebanon they are somewhat different.
> 
> Explain why Arab immigrants and refugees cannot be resettled in countries where they have full sovereignty around the block they moved from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> 
> No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Which Arabs are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing I don't understand as well,
> 
> You say Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians are natural Palestinians.
> Yet once those same immigrants end up back in Jordan and Lebanon they are somewhat different.
> 
> Explain why Arab immigrants and refugees cannot be resettled in countries where they have full sovereignty around the block they moved from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> 
> No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
Click to expand...

The right to return does not apply only to refugees.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing I don't understand as well,
> 
> You say Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians are natural Palestinians.
> Yet once those same immigrants end up back in Jordan and Lebanon they are somewhat different.
> 
> Explain why Arab immigrants and refugees cannot be resettled in countries where they have full sovereignty around the block they moved from?
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> 
> No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
Click to expand...

What does it change, You said no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing I don't understand as well,
> 
> You say Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians are natural Palestinians.
> Yet once those same immigrants end up back in Jordan and Lebanon they are somewhat different.
> 
> Explain why Arab immigrants and refugees cannot be resettled in countries where they have full sovereignty around the block they moved from?
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> 
> No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
Click to expand...


And does the RoR apply to illegal immigrants?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> 
> No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it change, You said no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals.
Click to expand...

I did.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking what I said out of context.
> 
> No country is obliged to accept the nationals of another country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And does the RoR apply to illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

If they are returning, they are not immigrants.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And does the RoR apply to illegal immigrants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are returning, they are not immigrants.
Click to expand...


Exactly - Arab Jordanian, Egyptian and other illegal immigrants are totally natural in the countries where they have full sovereignty.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do You oblige Israel to accept US citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it change, You said no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
Click to expand...

Israel is not obliged to accept anyone who is a citizen of another country.
Jordan, Lebanon and Syria are obliged to accept their nationals who were illegal immigrants.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it change, You said no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not obliged to accept anyone who is a citizen of another country.
> Jordan, Lebanon and Syria are obliged to accept their nationals who were illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

This should clear everything up for you.


----------



## Shusha

The question which remains unanswered is:  How do we ensure both the "right of return" for Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The question which remains unanswered is:  How do we ensure both the "right of return" for Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty?


Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question which remains unanswered is:  How do we ensure both the "right of return" for Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?

Why?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question which remains unanswered is:  How do we ensure both the "right of return" for Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

That is an interesting opinion. Where did you get it?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question which remains unanswered is:  How do we ensure both the "right of return" for Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an interesting opinion. Where did you get it?
Click to expand...


Come on. Don't play games. 

How do we ensure both the right of return for the Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the Jewish peoples self-determination?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question which remains unanswered is:  How do we ensure both the "right of return" for Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an interesting opinion. Where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on. Don't play games.
> 
> How do we ensure both the right of return for the Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the Jewish peoples self-determination?
Click to expand...



I personally don't believe in "right of return."  It's unrealistic.  My grandparents were forced out of Poland.  Could I really go back to their town, reclaim their butcher shop (which probably doesn't exist anymore) and their house, and just throw out the ppl who are living there now?  I never even got financial compensation for that, and I never considered myself to be a "refugee" anyway.  I guess the Palestinians and the other Arabs never listened to that Tom Petty song, where he sang,  "You don't have to live like a Refugee."


----------



## Shusha

ForeverYoung436 said:


> I personally don't believe in "right of return."  It's unrealistic.  My grandparents were forced out of Poland.  Could I really go back to their town, reclaim their butcher shop (which probably doesn't exist anymore) and their house, and just throw out the ppl who are living there now?  I never even got financial compensation for that, and I never considered myself to be a "refugee" anyway.  I guess the Palestinians and the other Arabs never listened to that Tom Petty song, where he sang,  "You don't have to live like a Refugee."



We agree.  The "right of return" is a right to return to the country of origin (not to the exact property, despite arguments made to the contrary by TP) and the right to compensation for lost property.

The durable solutions for refugees are:  voluntary return to country of origin, resettlement in the host country or resettlement in a third country.  The expectation of return of an exact piece of property is unrealistic and unachievable.  At worse, it only creates a new set of refugees.  

Further, descendants of refugees are not refugees.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question which remains unanswered is:  How do we ensure both the "right of return" for Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an interesting opinion. Where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on. Don't play games.
> 
> How do we ensure both the right of return for the Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the Jewish peoples self-determination?
Click to expand...

Israel should have thought of that before it created all of those refugees.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question which remains unanswered is:  How do we ensure both the "right of return" for Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an interesting opinion. Where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on. Don't play games.
> 
> How do we ensure both the right of return for the Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the Jewish peoples self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel should have thought of that before it created all of those refugees.
Click to expand...


Arabs should have thought of that before they attacked Israel.  

What's the solution, here?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an interesting opinion. Where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on. Don't play games.
> 
> How do we ensure both the right of return for the Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the Jewish peoples self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel should have thought of that before it created all of those refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs should have thought of that before they attacked Israel.
> 
> What's the solution, here?
Click to expand...


The Jews attacked and colonized Palestine.  The Muslims and Christians just tried to defend their homes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has one basic problem. Israel and international law are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an interesting opinion. Where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on. Don't play games.
> 
> How do we ensure both the right of return for the Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the Jewish peoples self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel should have thought of that before it created all of those refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs should have thought of that before they attacked Israel.
> 
> What's the solution, here?
Click to expand...

Another opinion. Got any proof of that?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Jewish people are to be denied their rights to self-determination?
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an interesting opinion. Where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on. Don't play games.
> 
> How do we ensure both the right of return for the Arab Palestinians while also ensuring the Jewish peoples self-determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel should have thought of that before it created all of those refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs should have thought of that before they attacked Israel.
> 
> What's the solution, here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another opinion. Got any proof of that?
Click to expand...



Sigh. As yours was. 

Stop playing games. What's the solution?  You have already said to me in other conversations that self- determination is the RIGHT of the Jewish people. How do we preserve those rights while also addressing the rights of the Arab (and Jewish) refugees?


----------



## Sixties Fan

But all this is only part of a continuing story. In 1940, one or another of the three great world Zionist leaders was in America throughout the year, giving speeches, holding meetings, and forming important alliances that would become essential to the Zionist cause during the historic decade to come. Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky, and Weizmann did not win their race against history in 1940, but their missions to America formed a chapter in a larger Zionist chronicle, one that had begun more than a half-century earlier and would continue throughout the ensuing World War, culminating eight years later in the founding of the modern state of Israel.

Indeed, the three missions contributed to a dawning awareness on the part of a significant number of American Jews that their own futures were linked to that of the Jews in Europe and Palestine. Over time, this awareness, and the commitment it engendered, became more widespread and powerful, and would prove critical not only to the formation but to the survival and flourishing of the Jewish state.

(full article online)

David Ben-Gurion's 1940 Mission to Rouse the Fighting Spirit of American Jews


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Ilan Pappe - The Zionist Ideology of the State of Israel.*

**
**


----------



## Sixties Fan

At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two. 

Here is a clear and typical example—in detail, which is where the devil resides—of Pappe’s handiwork. I take this example from The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. On February 2, 1948, a young Jewish scientist named Aharon Katzir came to see David Ben-Gurion, the chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive and the leader of the Jewish community in Palestine. Two months earlier, the General Assembly of the United Nations had recommended the partition of the country into two states. The Zionist establishment had accepted Resolution 181, but the Palestinian Arab leadership, and the surrounding Arab states, had rejected it—and Palestinian militiamen began to shoot at Jewish traffic, pedestrians, and settlements. The first Arab-Israeli war had begun.

(full article online)

The Liar as Hero
-------------

Ilan Pappe, a history lecturer at the University of Haifa, freely admits that, in his view, facts are irrelevant when it comes to the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts, Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers," Pappe said in an interview with the French newspaper _Le Soir_, Nov. 29, 1999. 

Elsewhere, Pappe elaborated on his attitude toward historical investigation and academic objectivity: "Historical Narratives . . . when written by historians involved deeply in the subject matter they write about, such as in the case of Israeli historians who write about the Palestine conflict, is motivated also...by a wish to make a point" (_History News Network_, April 5, 2004.) A more complete collection of Pappe's statements repudiating the value of historical facts is available here. 

In light of Pappe's openness about his contemptuous view of scholarship, and his rejection of historical facts in favor of ideology, it is negligent that Scott Wilson's profile of him omits this key context. The piece portrayed the Haifa historian as a "revisionist scholar" who languishes in "nearly complete isolation" in Israel supposedly due to his alleged myth-busting research and political views, in which he opposes the existence of a Jewish state, even within its 1948 boundaries. For example, Wilson quotes without challenge Pappe's absurd allegation that "My research debunked all of the lessons about Israel's creation that I had been raised on."

(full article online)

CAMERA: The Washington Post Ignores the Facts on Pappe


----------



## Sixties Fan

Remembering the Thirty-Five


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


Oh, Joy !!!

You found one more Jewish person who does what you love the most:

Say absolutely NOTHING.

"Israel is a white democracy"  so on and so forth....... 

All the things Tinmore loves to hear about Israel.

"Israeli framing"
-------------
Nope, I do not consider him a "self-hating Jew", just a Jew who has no idea about Judaism and what it means to be a Jew and following in the infamous footsteps of those like Paul of Tarsus and Pablo Christian. Two ex Jews who did everything they could to become rich at the expense of Judaism and all Jews.


With friends like this, Tin, you truly do not need to look for your brain.
Like all of them, you will never find it.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>



LOL.  Israel has succeeded in capturing the framing?  Hardly.  Just the opposite.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>



The foundational discussion is NOT terrorism.  He is wrong.  The foundational discussion is the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty in their historical homeland.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>



Its interesting where he discusses tribal nationalism.  And labels it as a basis of Israeli nationalism.  I think he is wrong.  What I think is interesting about it is that Jewish nationalism was inclusive in many ways.  Might have been.  It was the backlash of Arab tribal nationalism which pushed Israeli nationalism into a more exclusive place.  By necessity.  And by necessity means "for survival".  It was the Arab tribal nationalism's use of violence towards the Jewish people which compelled the Jewish people to defend themselves as a survival mechanism.  (Again!).  Without the Arab violence and their own tribal nationalism -- I think the Jewish nationalism would have been quite inclusive.  Like the US.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>



And he has some nerve discussing pan-nationalism in this context.  Come on.  Talk about framing the discussion.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>



Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.  

He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.  

Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.
> 
> He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.
Click to expand...

Not true. The British "offered" the Palestinians a minority position in the government when they were over 90% of the population. Everything the Palestinians opposed, like the settler colonial project, went through anyway.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.
> 
> He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The British "offered" the Palestinians a minority position in the government when they were over 90% of the population. Everything the Palestinians opposed, like the settler colonial project, went through anyway.
Click to expand...

There is no Jewish settler colonial project.

Only the Indigenous Jewish people joining the other indigenous Jews on their ancient homeland to become sovereign over it again.

The Arabs, with their attacks and endless NOs to anything which would give Jews any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland are losers, and they hate losing.

That is their problem.

They lost all the wars against Israel.

To the VICTOR comes the spoils.

And Israel is living the fruits of its success, as the Arabs are living the fruits of their loss of wars, and loss of honor and the hatred of Jews they have learned from the Quran.

The Arab Muslim leaders need to abandon their shame culture and think about the future as oil and donations are not going to be there forever.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.
> 
> He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The British "offered" the Palestinians a minority position in the government when they were over 90% of the population. Everything the Palestinians opposed, like the settler colonial project, went through anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Jewish settler colonial project.
> 
> Only the Indigenous Jewish people joining the other indigenous Jews on their ancient homeland to become sovereign over it again.
> 
> The Arabs, with their attacks and endless NOs to anything which would give Jews any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland are losers, and they hate losing.
> 
> That is their problem.
> 
> They lost all the wars against Israel.
> 
> To the VICTOR comes the spoils.
> 
> And Israel is living the fruits of its success, as the Arabs are living the fruits of their loss of wars, and loss of honor and the hatred of Jews they have learned from the Quran.
> 
> The Arab Muslim leaders need to abandon their shame culture and think about the future as oil and donations are not going to be there forever.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Israeli Talking Points.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.
> 
> He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The British "offered" the Palestinians a minority position in the government when they were over 90% of the population. Everything the Palestinians opposed, like the settler colonial project, went through anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Jewish settler colonial project.
> 
> Only the Indigenous Jewish people joining the other indigenous Jews on their ancient homeland to become sovereign over it again.
> 
> The Arabs, with their attacks and endless NOs to anything which would give Jews any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland are losers, and they hate losing.
> 
> That is their problem.
> 
> They lost all the wars against Israel.
> 
> To the VICTOR comes the spoils.
> 
> And Israel is living the fruits of its success, as the Arabs are living the fruits of their loss of wars, and loss of honor and the hatred of Jews they have learned from the Quran.
> 
> The Arab Muslim leaders need to abandon their shame culture and think about the future as oil and donations are not going to be there forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Mr. Israeli Talking Points.
Click to expand...

You are welcome, super fan of losers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.
> 
> He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The British "offered" the Palestinians a minority position in the government when they were over 90% of the population. Everything the Palestinians opposed, like the settler colonial project, went through anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Jewish settler colonial project.
> 
> Only the Indigenous Jewish people joining the other indigenous Jews on their ancient homeland to become sovereign over it again.
> 
> The Arabs, with their attacks and endless NOs to anything which would give Jews any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland are losers, and they hate losing.
> 
> That is their problem.
> 
> They lost all the wars against Israel.
> 
> To the VICTOR comes the spoils.
> 
> And Israel is living the fruits of its success, as the Arabs are living the fruits of their loss of wars, and loss of honor and the hatred of Jews they have learned from the Quran.
> 
> The Arab Muslim leaders need to abandon their shame culture and think about the future as oil and donations are not going to be there forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Mr. Israeli Talking Points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome, super fan of losers.
Click to expand...

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.
> 
> He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The British "offered" the Palestinians a minority position in the government when they were over 90% of the population. Everything the Palestinians opposed, like the settler colonial project, went through anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Jewish settler colonial project.
> 
> Only the Indigenous Jewish people joining the other indigenous Jews on their ancient homeland to become sovereign over it again.
> 
> The Arabs, with their attacks and endless NOs to anything which would give Jews any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland are losers, and they hate losing.
> 
> That is their problem.
> 
> They lost all the wars against Israel.
> 
> To the VICTOR comes the spoils.
> 
> And Israel is living the fruits of its success, as the Arabs are living the fruits of their loss of wars, and loss of honor and the hatred of Jews they have learned from the Quran.
> 
> The Arab Muslim leaders need to abandon their shame culture and think about the future as oil and donations are not going to be there forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Mr. Israeli Talking Points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome, super fan of losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Click to expand...

Empty threats.  As always.


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.
> 
> He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The British "offered" the Palestinians a minority position in the government when they were over 90% of the population. Everything the Palestinians opposed, like the settler colonial project, went through anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Jewish settler colonial project.
> 
> Only the Indigenous Jewish people joining the other indigenous Jews on their ancient homeland to become sovereign over it again.
> 
> The Arabs, with their attacks and endless NOs to anything which would give Jews any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland are losers, and they hate losing.
> 
> That is their problem.
> 
> They lost all the wars against Israel.
> 
> To the VICTOR comes the spoils.
> 
> And Israel is living the fruits of its success, as the Arabs are living the fruits of their loss of wars, and loss of honor and the hatred of Jews they have learned from the Quran.
> 
> The Arab Muslim leaders need to abandon their shame culture and think about the future as oil and donations are not going to be there forever.
Click to expand...


It has been a colonial project since at least 1899:

"Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times





*An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times depicts how the Conference sought to “colonize Palestine” and discussed the purchasing of land with English Zionists.*
*World Bulletin/News Desk*

An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times expresses that the Zionists “will colonize Palestine.”

The article explains that the conference discussed a paper from the English Zionist Federation “proposing the re-establishment of Judea as an independent State, suggesting the purchase of the Maccabean sites in Palestine, and the beginning of the work by the establishment of a Jewish colony and a Jewish Agricultural College there.”

It further clarifies that “The site to be purchased comprises about fifty acres, six miles from a station on the railroad between Jappa and Jerusalem, and within sight of the sea and a large stretch of the Palestinian coast.”

It notes that English Zionists have gathered 2,500 dollars in the currency of the period and request that quantity from the American Zionists.

The article also explains that “On motion of Dr. Wise, the Federation voted $100 as the nucleus of the required fund of $2,500, the remainder to be raised by subscriptions from the 125 societies and individuals, both Jews and Gentiles. A general appeal to the public will be made.”

It also conveys that delegates will be elected at the Zionist meeting in Baltimore.






The straightforward and comfortable manner with which the colonization is pursued is indicative how, before having to be concerned with the image of Zionism and public relations, Zionist leaders depicted their movement as a colonial mission during a time in which European nations were colonial powers. "

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin


----------



## P F Tinmore

*There are two narratives, but one reality: Palestinian dispossession*

I just finished reading _Palestine The Reality: The Inside Story of the Balfour Declaration 1917-1938_, by J.M.N. Jeffries, a British journalist for The Daily Mail at the time of the events discussed.  Who would think that a 748-page book on the diplomatic history of the Balfour Declaration and its aftermath could be a page-turner, but this book definitely is.  It’s a truly remarkable achievement and a fascinating read in many ways.  First a bit of back story.

The book was published originally in Great Britain in 1940.

Regarding the significance of the book for us, I think it’s important for people to read an account by an honest observer of the formative events early on, someone who hasn’t yet had time to grow accustomed to the reality of the Jewish State in Palestine.

What Jeffries shows so dramatically is that there may be two narratives, but only one of them, the Palestinian one, has much connection to reality. As we see from his vantage point so clearly, the land of Palestine was stolen from its people by a major world power and given to another group of people who had no claim to it whatsoever.

*There are two narratives, but one reality: Palestinian dispossession*


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *...*there may be two narratives, but only one of them, the Palestinian one, has much connection to reality. As we see from his vantage point so clearly, the land of Palestine was stolen from its people ...



There is no space in the world to tell the narrative of the two existing peoples of the place where the one peoples exist and the other does not.  Both peoples stories have a connection to reality.  The land of "Palestine" WAS stolen from its people.  It was stolen FIRST from its Jewish people, nearly three thousand years ago.  To discount that "narrative" and pretend that it is not a part of "reality" is to deny not only reality -- but the relevance and significance of an entire people and their historical homeland.  The Jewish peoples "reality" is just as real and significant and relevant as any other peoples.  If you want to say that the land was stolen AGAIN or BACK from those who usurped and those who inherited the land from the Jewish people -- that's fine.  I'll not argue.  *But to say that the Jewish people's claim to the land is outside "reality" is absurd.*


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...*there may be two narratives, but only one of them, the Palestinian one, has much connection to reality. As we see from his vantage point so clearly, the land of Palestine was stolen from its people ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no space in the world to tell the narrative of the two existing peoples of the place where the one peoples exist and the other does not.  Both peoples stories have a connection to reality.  The land of "Palestine" WAS stolen from its people.  It was stolen FIRST from its Jewish people, nearly three thousand years ago.  To discount that "narrative" and pretend that it is not a part of "reality" is to deny not only reality -- but the relevance and significance of an entire people and their historical homeland.  The Jewish peoples "reality" is just as real and significant and relevant as any other peoples.  If you want to say that the land was stolen AGAIN or BACK from those who usurped and those who inherited the land from the Jewish people -- that's fine.  I'll not argue.  *But to say that the Jewish people's claim to the land is outside "reality" is absurd.*
Click to expand...


It was stolen by the ancient Jews from the people living in the area before the Jews.  Except for the Samaritans (as a people) adopted Judaism.  These Jews and other people living in the area eventally adopted Christianity and then most adopted Islam.  The people the Europeans stole the land from are the descendants of Jews and others that adopted Christianity first and then many of whom later adopted Islam.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...*there may be two narratives, but only one of them, the Palestinian one, has much connection to reality. As we see from his vantage point so clearly, the land of Palestine was stolen from its people ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no space in the world to tell the narrative of the two existing peoples of the place where the one peoples exist and the other does not.  Both peoples stories have a connection to reality.  The land of "Palestine" WAS stolen from its people.  It was stolen FIRST from its Jewish people, nearly three thousand years ago.  To discount that "narrative" and pretend that it is not a part of "reality" is to deny not only reality -- but the relevance and significance of an entire people and their historical homeland.  The Jewish peoples "reality" is just as real and significant and relevant as any other peoples.  If you want to say that the land was stolen AGAIN or BACK from those who usurped and those who inherited the land from the Jewish people -- that's fine.  I'll not argue.  *But to say that the Jewish people's claim to the land is outside "reality" is absurd.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was stolen by the ancient Jews from the people living in the area before the Jews.  Except for the Samaritans (as a people) adopted Judaism.  These Jews and other people living in the area eventally adopted Christianity and then most adopted Islam.  The people the Europeans stole the land from are the descendants of Jews and others that adopted Christianity first and then many of whom later adopted Islam.
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...*there may be two narratives, but only one of them, the Palestinian one, has much connection to reality. As we see from his vantage point so clearly, the land of Palestine was stolen from its people ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no space in the world to tell the narrative of the two existing peoples of the place where the one peoples exist and the other does not.  Both peoples stories have a connection to reality.  The land of "Palestine" WAS stolen from its people.  It was stolen FIRST from its Jewish people, nearly three thousand years ago.  To discount that "narrative" and pretend that it is not a part of "reality" is to deny not only reality -- but the relevance and significance of an entire people and their historical homeland.  The Jewish peoples "reality" is just as real and significant and relevant as any other peoples.  If you want to say that the land was stolen AGAIN or BACK from those who usurped and those who inherited the land from the Jewish people -- that's fine.  I'll not argue.  *But to say that the Jewish people's claim to the land is outside "reality" is absurd.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was stolen by the ancient Jews from the people living in the area before the Jews.  Except for the Samaritans (as a people) adopted Judaism.  These Jews and other people living in the area eventally adopted Christianity and then most adopted Islam.  The people the Europeans stole the land from are the descendants of Jews and others that adopted Christianity first and then many of whom later adopted Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...


No need, historical fact is historical fact.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

BTW, I am a typical Ashkenaz Jew of Eastern European/ Polish descent.  I am taking a DNA test next week to see where my origins are, specifically if they're from the Middle East.  I will be honest and post the results, one way or the other, even if I am descended from Khazars.  (Incidentally, more than half of the Jewish population of Israel are from Mizrahi/ Middle Eastern descent, in any event.)


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


Jews were not granted Israel because of the Holocaust.

And it was not "somebody else's country". It is the Jewish Ancient homeland.
It was never  "Palestinian" homeland.  It was Muslim conquered land, Christian conquered land, Roman conquered land.

The Muslims always protected the Jews.  Sure!!!!

What does Alex or George know?  Nothing !


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Palestinian Americans* (Arabic: فلسطينيو أمريكا‎), are Americans of Palestinian ancestry. It is difficult to say when the first Palestinian immigrants arrived in the United States; however, most of the first immigrants to arrive were Christians escaping persecution in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th century. Later immigrants came to the country fleeing the Arab–Israeli or Palestinian conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it change, You said no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not obliged to accept anyone who is a citizen of another country.
> Jordan, Lebanon and Syria are obliged to accept their nationals who were illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This should clear everything up for you.
Click to expand...


It's pretty clear You try to hold the stick at the both ends.
Arabs came from a much wider variety of countries than the Jews, yet You call only one group foreigners, the one that originated in the land and bears its name.

Q. 2 posts ago You, stated no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals, so citizens of which country is Israel obliged to accept?


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now I am on to Part 2.
> 
> He says (paraphrased):  Had the Jewish people come to the land and said:   We see this land as our homeland, we want to revive the Jewish Nation, a Hebrew nation, we want to speak Hebrew, we want to come back, we want a Hebrew university, Hebrew literature, we are being persecuted and we need a place of refuge.  But we acknowledge and recognize an Arab peoples living here ... there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Dude!  That is EXACTLY what happened. That is exactly what the Jewish people did.  That is exactly what the international community supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. The British "offered" the Palestinians a minority position in the government when they were over 90% of the population. Everything the Palestinians opposed, like the settler colonial project, went through anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Jewish settler colonial project.
> 
> Only the Indigenous Jewish people joining the other indigenous Jews on their ancient homeland to become sovereign over it again.
> 
> The Arabs, with their attacks and endless NOs to anything which would give Jews any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland are losers, and they hate losing.
> 
> That is their problem.
> 
> They lost all the wars against Israel.
> 
> To the VICTOR comes the spoils.
> 
> And Israel is living the fruits of its success, as the Arabs are living the fruits of their loss of wars, and loss of honor and the hatred of Jews they have learned from the Quran.
> 
> The Arab Muslim leaders need to abandon their shame culture and think about the future as oil and donations are not going to be there forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been a colonial project since at least 1899:
> 
> "Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times depicts how the Conference sought to “colonize Palestine” and discussed the purchasing of land with English Zionists.*
> *World Bulletin/News Desk*
> 
> An article about a Conference of Zionists published on July 20, 1899 in the New York Times expresses that the Zionists “will colonize Palestine.”
> 
> The article explains that the conference discussed a paper from the English Zionist Federation “proposing the re-establishment of Judea as an independent State, suggesting the purchase of the Maccabean sites in Palestine, and the beginning of the work by the establishment of a Jewish colony and a Jewish Agricultural College there.”
> 
> It further clarifies that “The site to be purchased comprises about fifty acres, six miles from a station on the railroad between Jappa and Jerusalem, and within sight of the sea and a large stretch of the Palestinian coast.”
> 
> It notes that English Zionists have gathered 2,500 dollars in the currency of the period and request that quantity from the American Zionists.
> 
> The article also explains that “On motion of Dr. Wise, the Federation voted $100 as the nucleus of the required fund of $2,500, the remainder to be raised by subscriptions from the 125 societies and individuals, both Jews and Gentiles. A general appeal to the public will be made.”
> 
> It also conveys that delegates will be elected at the Zionist meeting in Baltimore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The straightforward and comfortable manner with which the colonization is pursued is indicative how, before having to be concerned with the image of Zionism and public relations, Zionist leaders depicted their movement as a colonial mission during a time in which European nations were colonial powers. "
> 
> Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin
Click to expand...


In 1870 - 10 years prior to the 1st Zionist immigration, the Tamimi tribe had only 5 houses in Nabi Salih colony.


Now I hear a Qatari sheikh has a claim to Spain...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *There are two narratives, but one reality: Palestinian dispossession*
> 
> I just finished reading _Palestine The Reality: The Inside Story of the Balfour Declaration 1917-1938_, by J.M.N. Jeffries, a British journalist for The Daily Mail at the time of the events discussed.  Who would think that a 748-page book on the diplomatic history of the Balfour Declaration and its aftermath could be a page-turner, but this book definitely is.  It’s a truly remarkable achievement and a fascinating read in many ways.  First a bit of back story.
> 
> The book was published originally in Great Britain in 1940.
> 
> Regarding the significance of the book for us, I think it’s important for people to read an account by an honest observer of the formative events early on, someone who hasn’t yet had time to grow accustomed to the reality of the Jewish State in Palestine.
> 
> What Jeffries shows so dramatically is that there may be two narratives, but only one of them, the Palestinian one, has much connection to reality. As we see from his vantage point so clearly, the land of Palestine was stolen from its people by a major world power and given to another group of people who had no claim to it whatsoever.
> 
> *There are two narratives, but one reality: Palestinian dispossession*



In other words - Your narrative survival is dependent on the denial of anything Israelis say.

A pretty weak position which describes the situation in which the Soviets left the table.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to return does not apply only to refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> What does it change, You said no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not obliged to accept anyone who is a citizen of another country.
> Jordan, Lebanon and Syria are obliged to accept their nationals who were illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This should clear everything up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear You try to hold the stick at the both ends.
> Arabs came from a much wider variety of countries than the Jews, yet You call only one group foreigners, the one that originated in the land and bears its name.
> 
> Q. 2 posts ago You, stated no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals, so citizens of which country is Israel obliged to accept?
Click to expand...

I did.

Its own.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it change, You said no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals.
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is not obliged to accept anyone who is a citizen of another country.
> Jordan, Lebanon and Syria are obliged to accept their nationals who were illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This should clear everything up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear You try to hold the stick at the both ends.
> Arabs came from a much wider variety of countries than the Jews, yet You call only one group foreigners, the one that originated in the land and bears its name.
> 
> Q. 2 posts ago You, stated no country is obliged to accept foreign nationals, so citizens of which country is Israel obliged to accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 
> Its own.
Click to expand...


It's kinda meaningless. Proves my point further. See the the case of a converted Iranian, Israel is also obliged to screen people who are a danger to its' citizens.


----------



## theliq

ForeverYoung436 said:


> BTW, I am a typical Ashkenaz Jew of Eastern European/ Polish descent.  I am taking a DNA test next week to see where my origins are, specifically if they're from the Middle East.  I will be honest and post the results, one way or the other, even if I am descended from Khazars.  (Incidentally, more than half of the Jewish population of Israel are from Mizrahi/ Middle Eastern descent, in any event.)


I think you may be surprised FY,you should have some Mongol,Arab,in you too.......many Europeans have a very small % of Neanderthal in them as well...it is referred to as Iberian in these tests....one of our femme staff Carol had a DNA test too...she had a little of *8 peoples in her DNA...when she asked me what .2 Iberian meant .... I told her Neandi,she said don't be stupid,LOL only to come to work the next day to say I was right Forever prior to and during the reign of the Neandi,their were two other strains of similar "people"their DNA is found in people in parts of the Balkans or Turkey,I cannot remember how or what they are referred as....both died out,the reason that the DNA test refer to Iberian(tip of Spain and Portugal) is where the Neandi died out but not before mixing with Homo Sapiens.....Carol said to me why don't you have you DNA done steve....NO WAY I SAID...I may end up being 98% Neandi LOL but it could be true according to you and your possee....LOL....Forever let us know how you get on....it is fascinating.....steve


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews were not granted Israel because of the Holocaust.
> 
> And it was not "somebody else's country". It is the Jewish Ancient homeland.
> It was never  "Palestinian" homeland.  It was Muslim conquered land, Christian conquered land, Roman conquered land.
> 
> The Muslims always protected the Jews.  Sure!!!!
> 
> What does Alex or George know?  Nothing !
Click to expand...

I think it had a fair part to do with it 60's,the Holocaust....and lets be honest,the Christian Europeans wanted to see the back of the Jews....Your assumption on being a Jewish homeland is not true,moreover the Jews at the Roman period fled or were expelled(and had been conquered many times prior,arresting any claim the Jews thought it was "THEIR LAND" they were conquered they did not own the land anymore) as you said.

It was the Palestinians Ancient Land too,something you over look...you say often that the Ottomans owned the land but left,they too left Greece,Albania,Bosnia Hertzagovinia,Bulgaria but the Land returned to the previous owners......Palestine was not although they were in the majority for 2000 years.............You never mention this......No Convert had any claim,No Zionist had any Claim...the sickening thing was that the British were in the final outcome had aWar with the Terrorist Zionists Groups and the British Administration was totally Infiltrated by Zionists....and we know the result bribery of Countries in the UN..........by the way the Palestinians and other Muslims(Istanbul,Morrocco etc)did look after Jews....when Christians in Europe in their Murderous ways tried to EXTERMINATE Jews for over a period of 1000 years or so,in Spain,France,England,Russia etc., and lastly the Beastiality of the Germans.....yet you Never criticize them......just the Palestinians who helped the Jews......You see your and people like Hollie,Rocco and others mentality is Skewed completely.....the reason is Guilt I believe....Guiltiness of the barbaric Nazi Style treatment like you received,yet you of all people perpetuated the same thing on the Palestinians and continue to...it is a shocking look and the rest of the world sees it,yet you the perportrators claim innocence.....this shame is something you have to live with,thus your lying belief is you have done none of these things........helped by the indoctorination of you Banal and Discredited Cult...steve....Converts are Not Jews,in any real sense they have NO lineage to Abraham,that is only for the Real and only Semitic People the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians..............Israel is now full of Synthetic Coverts who amazingly think they are real Jews and in some MAD CASES think they are Semitic........What really goes on in the Zionist mind.......Full of Plastic,that man made Synthetic


----------



## Sixties Fan

By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense?

Of all the leaders of the Zionist movement, it was Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who dealt most extensively with the kinds of claims made by Abbas. Below are several passages from Abbas’s address followed by statements by Ben-Gurion on the same topic.

(full article online)

Mahmoud Abbas’s Speech: Who Was the Real Audience?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:

1.Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181  that spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:

“After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”

The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:

“Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”

2.Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

3. Falsely alleging:

“The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”

The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations' own archives.

(full article online)

UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:
> 
> 1.Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181  that spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:
> 
> “After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”
> 
> The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:
> 
> “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”
> 
> 2.Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
> 
> 3. Falsely alleging:
> 
> “The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”
> 
> The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations' own archives.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine





Sixties Fan said:


> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine


By a Zionist nutjob?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:
> 
> 1.Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181  that spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:
> 
> “After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”
> 
> The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:
> 
> “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”
> 
> 2.Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
> 
> 3. Falsely alleging:
> 
> “The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”
> 
> The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations' own archives.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a Zionist nutjob?
Click to expand...

You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.

I will add both names to the list  
Will get in touch with you when it comes up


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:
> 
> 1.Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181  that spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:
> 
> “After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”
> 
> The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:
> 
> “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”
> 
> 2.Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
> 
> 3. Falsely alleging:
> 
> “The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”
> 
> The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations' own archives.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a Zionist nutjob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
Click to expand...

By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:
> 
> 1.Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181  that spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:
> 
> “After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”
> 
> The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:
> 
> “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”
> 
> 2.Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
> 
> 3. Falsely alleging:
> 
> “The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”
> 
> The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations' own archives.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a Zionist nutjob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
Click to expand...

Lesson # 1:

TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.

 The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.

Jordan is IN the Palestine region.

Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.

You are welcome


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense?
> 
> Of all the leaders of the Zionist movement, it was Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who dealt most extensively with the kinds of claims made by Abbas. Below are several passages from Abbas’s address followed by statements by Ben-Gurion on the same topic.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas’s Speech: Who Was the Real Audience?



The important point here is that the Balfour Declaration did not GRANT the Jewish people anything.  It merely recognized the EXISTING rights of the Jewish people as an indigenous peoples with an historical connection to the land which was removed from them by successive invaders and conquerers.  

_*Ben-Gurion: *“Our right to the Land of Israel does not stem from the Mandate and the Balfour Declaration. It precedes those. ... Our historical right has existed since our beginnings as the Jewish People, and the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate recognize and confirm that right” (testimony to the Peel Royal Commission, January 1937, Bama’archa, vol. 1, pp. 77-78).

“A homeland is not given as a gift and is not acquired by means of political rights and contracts. It is not purchased with gold and is not conquered by force, but is built with sweat. This homeland is a historical creation and a collective endeavor of a people, the fruit of its physical, spiritual, and moral labor down through the generations. … The Land of Israel will be ours not when the Turks, the English, or the next peace conference agrees to it, and it is undersigned in a diplomatic treaty – but when we, the Jews, build it. We will not attain the real, true, and lasting right to the land from others, but from our labor._


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:
> 
> 1.Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181  that spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:
> 
> “After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”
> 
> The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:
> 
> “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”
> 
> 2.Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
> 
> 3. Falsely alleging:
> 
> “The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”
> 
> The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations' own archives.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a Zionist nutjob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
Click to expand...


I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense?
> 
> Of all the leaders of the Zionist movement, it was Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who dealt most extensively with the kinds of claims made by Abbas. Below are several passages from Abbas’s address followed by statements by Ben-Gurion on the same topic.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas’s Speech: Who Was the Real Audience?[/Z60'sionists thank you for your post on the inception of Zionism...your enthusiasm of the incredible gathering is flawed,it started with Hertzell(The Gay ATHIEST Jew) and a few others...who had the ear of Jewish members in the British parliment sic...and later grew into a flood of illegal immigrants to Palestine...The Zionists basically hijacked the Real Jews few that they were in Palestine.I must admit the Zionist played a very skillful game in achieving their goal......but at a cost...Judiaism was the real loser and the Palestinians 2bcontinued  steve


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense?
> 
> Of all the leaders of the Zionist movement, it was Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who dealt most extensively with the kinds of claims made by Abbas. Below are several passages from Abbas’s address followed by statements by Ben-Gurion on the same topic.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas’s Speech: Who Was the Real Audience?[/Z60'sionists thank you for your post on the inception of Zionism...your enthusiasm of the incredible gathering is flawed,it started with Hertzell(The Gay ATHIEST Jew) and a few others...who had the ear of Jewish members in the British parliment sic...and later grew into a flood of illegal immigrants to Palestine...The Zionists basically hijacked the Real Jews few that they were in Palestine.I must admit the Zionist played a very skillful game in achieving their goal......but at a cost...Judiaism was the real loser and the Palestinians 2bcontinued  steve
Click to expand...

Stevie boy, 

Zionism began with the first Jews being taken from Israel to Babylon.

You are sadly a very ignorant nobody who was taught to hate Jews, but who cares.

Your kind of hatred was exported by Paul of Tarsus to the rest of the world, and you are just another follower of his, even if you do not know that.

We are the real ones.  The descendants of the ones who kicked butt against the Phillistines and created the Nation of Israel 3000 years ago, and no fire you continue to breath out of your mouth is ever going to change that.

We have survived the greatest lies and the greatest murders of our people for the past 1700 years.

We shall continue to survive fools like you who have no power at all to make the Jewish people....puffff......disappear.


Am Israel Chai !

The People of Israel Live !


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense?
> 
> Of all the leaders of the Zionist movement, it was Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who dealt most extensively with the kinds of claims made by Abbas. Below are several passages from Abbas’s address followed by statements by Ben-Gurion on the same topic.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas’s Speech: Who Was the Real Audience?[/Z60'sionists thank you for your post on the inception of Zionism...your enthusiasm of the incredible gathering is flawed,it started with Hertzell(The Gay ATHIEST Jew) and a few others...who had the ear of Jewish members in the British parliment sic...and later grew into a flood of illegal immigrants to Palestine...The Zionists basically hijacked the Real Jews few that they were in Palestine.I must admit the Zionist played a very skillful game in achieving their goal......but at a cost...Judiaism was the real loser and the Palestinians 2bcontinued  steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stevie boy,
> 
> Zionism began with the first Jews being taken from Israel to Babylon.
> 
> You are sadly a very ignorant nobody who was taught to hate Jews, but who cares.
> 
> Your kind of hatred was exported by Paul of Tarsus to the rest of the world, and you are just another follower of his, even if you do not know that.
> 
> We are the real ones.  The descendants of the ones who kicked butt against the Phillistines and created the Nation of Israel 3000 years ago, and no fire you continue to breath out of your mouth is ever going to change that.
> 
> We have survived the greatest lies and the greatest murders of our people for the past 1700 years.
> 
> We shall continue to survive fools like you who have no power at all to make the Jewish people....puffff......disappear.
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !
> 
> The People of Israel Live !
Click to expand...

Stevie Boy LOL That I will take as a compliment 60's....!!!!!!!!ZIONISM began with the first Jews taken to Babylon!!!!!!!!!!!!Sorry NO,you are 3500 years too early on that score BUT keep trying,as you can be very trying at times

I am not ignorant and was never taught to hate Jews,quite the reverse....I don't HATE Jews but do draw the line at Zionist Terrorists...FULL STOP.

Paragraph 3......Inane

Zionists are NOT REAL ONES,stop being silly.as for the Philistines,David used these people against King Saul and his murder,he then spread the women and children into the 12 Tribes....before formally EXTERMINATE ALL MALE Philistines....David then King David(the Userper) was not allowed to Consecrate the Temple in Jerusalem BECAUSE OF HIS BAD DEEDS(Murdering King Saul and his family,except one daughter who he raped) The Consecration of the Temple was left to his Son...FACT.

I agree with you on the 1700 years,but as of 1940 onwards...You Converted Zionists have been the most despicable bunch of LIARS,THEIVES,MURDERERS AND TERRORISTS...FACT.

I am no fool but it will be yourselves that will destroy you,you are not Gods Chosen People...You deny the Son of God and therefore,you are diminished,you boasting Pharasee...Now Pufffffffffff....Look you have gone


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense?
> 
> Of all the leaders of the Zionist movement, it was Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who dealt most extensively with the kinds of claims made by Abbas. Below are several passages from Abbas’s address followed by statements by Ben-Gurion on the same topic.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas’s Speech: Who Was the Real Audience?[/Z60'sionists thank you for your post on the inception of Zionism...your enthusiasm of the incredible gathering is flawed,it started with Hertzell(The Gay ATHIEST Jew) and a few others...who had the ear of Jewish members in the British parliment sic...and later grew into a flood of illegal immigrants to Palestine...The Zionists basically hijacked the Real Jews few that they were in Palestine.I must admit the Zionist played a very skillful game in achieving their goal......but at a cost...Judiaism was the real loser and the Palestinians 2bcontinued  steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stevie boy,
> 
> Zionism began with the first Jews being taken from Israel to Babylon.
> 
> You are sadly a very ignorant nobody who was taught to hate Jews, but who cares.
> 
> Your kind of hatred was exported by Paul of Tarsus to the rest of the world, and you are just another follower of his, even if you do not know that.
> 
> We are the real ones.  The descendants of the ones who kicked butt against the Phillistines and created the Nation of Israel 3000 years ago, and no fire you continue to breath out of your mouth is ever going to change that.
> 
> We have survived the greatest lies and the greatest murders of our people for the past 1700 years.
> 
> We shall continue to survive fools like you who have no power at all to make the Jewish people....puffff......disappear.
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !
> 
> The People of Israel Live !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stevie Boy LOL That I will take as a compliment 60's....!!!!!!!!ZIONISM began with the first Jews taken to Babylon!!!!!!!!!!!!Sorry NO,you are 3500 years too early on that score BUT keep trying,as you can be very trying at times
> 
> I am not ignorant and was never taught to hate Jews,quite the reverse....I don't HATE Jews but do draw the line at Zionist Terrorists...FULL STOP.
> 
> Paragraph 3......Inane
> 
> Zionists are NOT REAL ONES,stop being silly.as for the Philistines,David used these people against King Saul and his murder,he then spread the women and children into the 12 Tribes....before formally EXTERMINATE ALL MALE Philistines....David then King David(the Userper) was not allowed to Consecrate the Temple in Jerusalem BECAUSE OF HIS BAD DEEDS(Murdering King Saul and his family,except one daughter who he raped) The Consecration of the Temple was left to his Son...FACT.
> 
> I agree with you on the 1700 years,but as of 1940 onwards...You Converted Zionists have been the most despicable bunch of LIARS,THEIVES,MURDERERS AND TERRORISTS...FACT.
> 
> I am no fool but it will be yourselves that will destroy you,you are not Gods Chosen People...You deny the Son of God and therefore,you are diminished,you boasting Pharasee...Now Pufffffffffff....Look you have gone
Click to expand...

Steve boy, you cannot even count how long ago Babylon was.
That is your lesson # 2.

And for the rest of your more than insane rewriting of Jewish history, seek some help.

Lesson # 3
Never, ever, bring up Jesus as the son of god, as your excuse for hating Jews, rewriting any and all of their history (which happens to be Jesus' as well - the human being, not a god of any kind as he was not a pagan born into paganism  -  "get it"?)

Why?  Because all you show is your continued Christian warped education about Jews and Judaism as started by Paul of Tarsus.

Keep following Paul's teachings.

We shall continue to be what we have always been.  The descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites, Judeans/Jews who continued to follow in the footsteps of Abraham.

No need to understand what that means.

And NONE of this has anything to do with the creation of the Modern State of Israel.


Oooops........we are still here, and will continue to be - regardless of the final solution you keep having in mind for us as you dream it with other sociopaths and psychopaths like yourself.


Am Israel Chai !!

You will never kill the Jewish people or their rights or their hopes.
But you can try.....

*Hatikvah*

As long as within our hearts

The Jewish soul sings,

As long as forward to the East

To Zion, looks the eye –

Our hope is not yet lost,

It is two thousand years old,

To be a free people in our land

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense?
> 
> Of all the leaders of the Zionist movement, it was Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who dealt most extensively with the kinds of claims made by Abbas. Below are several passages from Abbas’s address followed by statements by Ben-Gurion on the same topic.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas’s Speech: Who Was the Real Audience?[/Z60'sionists thank you for your post on the inception of Zionism...your enthusiasm of the incredible gathering is flawed,it started with Hertzell(The Gay ATHIEST Jew) and a few others...who had the ear of Jewish members in the British parliment sic...and later grew into a flood of illegal immigrants to Palestine...The Zionists basically hijacked the Real Jews few that they were in Palestine.I must admit the Zionist played a very skillful game in achieving their goal......but at a cost...Judiaism was the real loser and the Palestinians 2bcontinued  steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stevie boy,
> 
> Zionism began with the first Jews being taken from Israel to Babylon.
> 
> You are sadly a very ignorant nobody who was taught to hate Jews, but who cares.
> 
> Your kind of hatred was exported by Paul of Tarsus to the rest of the world, and you are just another follower of his, even if you do not know that.
> 
> We are the real ones.  The descendants of the ones who kicked butt against the Phillistines and created the Nation of Israel 3000 years ago, and no fire you continue to breath out of your mouth is ever going to change that.
> 
> We have survived the greatest lies and the greatest murders of our people for the past 1700 years.
> 
> We shall continue to survive fools like you who have no power at all to make the Jewish people....puffff......disappear.
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !
> 
> The People of Israel Live !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stevie Boy LOL That I will take as a compliment 60's....!!!!!!!!ZIONISM began with the first Jews taken to Babylon!!!!!!!!!!!!Sorry NO,you are 3500 years too early on that score BUT keep trying,as you can be very trying at times
> 
> I am not ignorant and was never taught to hate Jews,quite the reverse....I don't HATE Jews but do draw the line at Zionist Terrorists...FULL STOP.
> 
> Paragraph 3......Inane
> 
> Zionists are NOT REAL ONES,stop being silly.as for the Philistines,David used these people against King Saul and his murder,he then spread the women and children into the 12 Tribes....before formally EXTERMINATE ALL MALE Philistines....David then King David(the Userper) was not allowed to Consecrate the Temple in Jerusalem BECAUSE OF HIS BAD DEEDS(Murdering King Saul and his family,except one daughter who he raped) The Consecration of the Temple was left to his Son...FACT.
> 
> I agree with you on the 1700 years,but as of 1940 onwards...You Converted Zionists have been the most despicable bunch of LIARS,THEIVES,MURDERERS AND TERRORISTS...FACT.
> 
> I am no fool but it will be yourselves that will destroy you,you are not Gods Chosen People...You deny the Son of God and therefore,you are diminished,you boasting Pharasee...Now Pufffffffffff....Look you have gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve boy, you cannot even count how long ago Babylon was.
> That is your lesson # 2.
> 
> And for the rest of your more than insane rewriting of Jewish history, seek some help.
> 
> Lesson # 3
> Never, ever, bring up Jesus as the son of god, as your excuse for hating Jews, rewriting any and all of their history (which happens to be Jesus' as well - the human being, not a god of any kind as he was not a pagan born into paganism  -  "get it"?)
> 
> Why?  Because all you show is your continued Christian warped education about Jews and Judaism as started by Paul of Tarsus.
> 
> Keep following Paul's teachings.
> 
> We shall continue to be what we have always been.  The descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites, Judeans/Jews who continued to follow in the footsteps of Abraham.
> 
> No need to understand what that means.
> 
> And NONE of this has anything to do with the creation of the Modern State of Israel.
> 
> 
> Oooops........we are still here, and will continue to be - regardless of the final solution you keep having in mind for us as you dream it with other sociopaths and psychopaths like yourself.
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !!
> 
> You will never kill the Jewish people or their rights or their hopes.
> But you can try.....
> 
> *Hatikvah*
> 
> As long as within our hearts
> 
> The Jewish soul sings,
> 
> As long as forward to the East
> 
> To Zion, looks the eye –
> 
> Our hope is not yet lost,
> 
> It is two thousand years old,
> 
> To be a free people in our land
> 
> The land of Zion and Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

All very eloquent I'm sure,from the Rabid Zionist Point of view...but others have a realistic approach to the Murderous Terrorism of Cult Zionism,who ever said they want to kill Jews...NOT ME,even Zionists...so cut the Bullshit...

But I will tell you who did help send Jews to the Gas Chambers and collaborated with the NAZIS....IT WAS THE ZIONISTS...remember when the Zionist Leader quoted "ONE COW IN ISRAEL IS WORTH MORE THAN ALL THE JEWS OF EUROPE" or has that evaporated from your brain also....course it has because like the rest of your ilk,you plaster over the corruption of your Darstedly sic Cult....you are the quintessential sic Zionist Trash.
Version 2 for Zionists Only(not real Jews) circa 1899

Long within our Black hearts

The Zionist Mantra we sing

Soon Forward to the EAST(not West you will note)

The Zionist Eye doth see and FEAST

"This Beautiful Land  owned by another man"(the Palestinians)

But we will pursue with Terrorist Glee

The two thousand year Palestinians in THEIR HOMES

Who like Prometheous will be bound

And Slaughtered to the Ground

And like the Zionist,drink from their Bloodclatt,Rassclatt

You have Murdered Jews, you will Never Defeat the Palestinians,in their Own Land.....You Boasting Pharisee,You'll Never Conquer Me


Now take your sorry Ass from here,you Curr


----------



## theliq

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:
> 
> 1.Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181  that spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:
> 
> “After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”
> 
> The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:
> 
> “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”
> 
> 2.Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
> 
> 3. Falsely alleging:
> 
> “The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”
> 
> The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations' own archives.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a Zionist nutjob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
Click to expand...

The Jordanians,are different to Palestinians Fore,very much so....the main reason that there are more Palestinians now in Jordan is the result of the Palestinians being driven out of Palestine by the Zionist Terrorist Groups circa 1946-1950......Jordan now also has a Palestinian born Queen,a very Beautiful,Intelligent Woman and well Respected Worldwide.....just sayin steve....but to reiterate the Jordanians are very different originally to the Palestinians...but in a way you have a point,as both populations will Morph into the same(a bit of both) in time....Much like the Jews from Europe and Morocco sic have over the years in Israel..but you I think know this already. st


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> By every historical account, the Zionist revolution – the incredible ingathering of the exiles and the establishment of the flourishing and highly successful state of Israel – is a unique and unprecedented phenomenon. Those who insist on viewing it as yet another immigration wave among the 20th century global population movements fail to grasp the real nature of this revolution. In this respect, Abbas touched the key issue that, in his eyes, made the Palestinians the main victim of Zionism: if the Jews yearn for a safe haven, and the international community wants to provide them with one, why does it have to be in Palestine, at the Palestinians’ expense?
> 
> Of all the leaders of the Zionist movement, it was Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, who dealt most extensively with the kinds of claims made by Abbas. Below are several passages from Abbas’s address followed by statements by Ben-Gurion on the same topic.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Mahmoud Abbas’s Speech: Who Was the Real Audience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The important point here is that the Balfour Declaration did not GRANT the Jewish people anything.  It merely recognized the EXISTING rights of the Jewish people as an indigenous peoples with an historical connection to the land which was removed from them by successive invaders and conquerers.
> 
> _*Ben-Gurion: *“Our right to the Land of Israel does not stem from the Mandate and the Balfour Declaration. It precedes those. ... Our historical right has existed since our beginnings as the Jewish People, and the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate recognize and confirm that right” (testimony to the Peel Royal Commission, January 1937, Bama’archa, vol. 1, pp. 77-78).
> 
> “A homeland is not given as a gift and is not acquired by means of political rights and contracts. It is not purchased with gold and is not conquered by force, but is built with sweat. This homeland is a historical creation and a collective endeavor of a people, the fruit of its physical, spiritual, and moral labor down through the generations. … The Land of Israel will be ours not when the Turks, the English, or the next peace conference agrees to it, and it is undersigned in a diplomatic treaty – but when we, the Jews, build it. We will not attain the real, true, and lasting right to the land from others, but from our labor._
Click to expand...

And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three examples highlight the falsity and outright bias of this UN Study:
> 
> 1.Deliberately misrepresenting General Assembly Resolution 181  that spoke of a “Palestinian Arab State” - when claiming:
> 
> “After investigating various alternatives the United Nations proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized.”
> 
> The actual wording of Resolution 181 stated:
> 
> “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine....”
> 
> 2.Omitting any mention of the fact that 78% of Palestine had become an independent Arab State in 1946 and been renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.
> 
> 3. Falsely alleging:
> 
> “The decision on the Mandate [for Palestine] did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine”
> 
> The evidence contradicting this falsehood actually sits in the United Nations' own archives.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Sec. Gen. Guterres needs a crash course on Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a Zionist nutjob?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
Click to expand...




ForeverYoung436 said:


> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.


So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?

What dumbfuck wrote this shit?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By a Zionist nutjob?
> 
> 
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
Click to expand...


You can thank your Islamic co-religionists for nakba’ing the bejezzus out of the Arab-Moslem settler colonists.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By a Zionist nutjob?
> 
> 
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
Click to expand...


Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
> 
> 
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
Click to expand...


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Any intelligent response on your part?


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you



Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any intelligent response on your part?
Click to expand...

Excellent match for the post.


----------



## theliq

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in need of the same crash course on Palestine.
> Maybe they can start a class for those like you and Guterres who do not care about History of the land.
> 
> I will add both names to the list
> Will get in touch with you when it comes up
> 
> 
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
Click to expand...

Really Fore,I do give you credit most of the time but when I see such prose like this,I sometimes wonder why...come on man,you can do better than this nonsence..st


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
Click to expand...

YES,considering your BENT of actually distorting the facts.... to suit your imagination ...of exaggeration ...as an explanation....of you moral deterioration....and degeneration.

Now Bend Down Low,let me show you what I know....steven


----------



## rylah

theliq said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> By a "Jordan is Palestine" nutjob.
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really Fore,I do give you credit most of the time but when I see such prose like this,I sometimes wonder why...come on man,you can do better than this nonsence..st
Click to expand...


Yet what he said was factually correct.

Israel is just 1% of the middle east, Arabs and other Muslims control the other 99%.
*Take the Tamimi family for example, they have a WHOLE COUNTRY of their own, called Qatar.*

Yet they can't stand seeing Jews having 1% of the land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
Click to expand...

For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.

Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson # 1:
> 
> TransJordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> The Hashemites and TransJordan became an Arab Palestinian State in 1946.
> 
> Jordan is IN the Palestine region.
> 
> Jordan, therefore IS Palestine.  78 % of it.
> 
> You are welcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really Fore,I do give you credit most of the time but when I see such prose like this,I sometimes wonder why...come on man,you can do better than this nonsence..st
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet what he said was factually correct.
> 
> Israel is just 1% of the middle east, Arabs and other Muslims control the other 99%.
> *Take the Tamimi family for example, they have a WHOLE COUNTRY of their own, called Qatar.*
> 
> Yet they can't stand seeing Jews having 1% of the land.
Click to expand...

Percentages don't matter when someone is claiming* your *land.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.
> 
> Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?
Click to expand...


You’re incensed that the Arab-Islamist settler colonial project was supplanted by a modern, educated society. 

You will have to learn to deal with that.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.
> 
> Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?
Click to expand...

Arabs had no deeds.  They invaded in the 7th century.  That some are now called Palestinians since 1964, for the sake of destroying their hated Jews' Nation, does not grant them the right to the region of Palestine.
The Arabs had no deeds during the Ottoman time, either.  Either one, Jew or Arab, only got to buy land from the Ottoman Empire after 1850 when the Empire began to fall.

Rejecting the connection of any Jew descendant of Jews who lived on the land and made a Nation out of it. 

Be ashamed of yourself.

Still, your endless rejectionism and denialism of who the Jews are, will never take away from them the 1 % they worked hard for and GAINED legally to recreate their Nation.

sniff....


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the old Encyclopedias that were around before the Internet.  If you looked up the History of Jordan in them, they would refer you to the History of Palestine before the 1900's.  Jordan is the name of a River, and not really the name of a country.  It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.  It was also put off-limits to any Jew wanting to live there.  Numerous Palestinian officials have stated quite openly that there is no real difference between Palestinians and Jordanians.  That is why Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to "Palestinian refugees", and that is also why the PLO tried to take over Jordan in 1970.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was artificially carved out of the Palestine Mandate by the British, who mistakenly believed the Arabs' greed for more and more land could be satiated by a mere 78% of what was then known as Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really Fore,I do give you credit most of the time but when I see such prose like this,I sometimes wonder why...come on man,you can do better than this nonsence..st
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet what he said was factually correct.
> 
> Israel is just 1% of the middle east, Arabs and other Muslims control the other 99%.
> *Take the Tamimi family for example, they have a WHOLE COUNTRY of their own, called Qatar.*
> 
> Yet they can't stand seeing Jews having 1% of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Percentages don't matter when someone is claiming* your *land.
Click to expand...


THANK YOU!

This is exactly what the Jews claim after centuries of being overwhelmed by Arabian invading tribes.
We are minority in the world, but percentages DON"T MATTER when You claim Your ancestral lands.

You Americans are running from the fact that Your state left a tiny percent of Indians, exactly like Arabs did to Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.
> 
> Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arabs had no deeds.  They invaded in the 7th century.  That some are now called Palestinians since 1964, for the sake of destroying their hated Jews' Nation, does not grant them the right to the region of Palestine.
> The Arabs had no deeds during the Ottoman time, either.  Either one, Jew or Arab, only got to buy land from the Ottoman Empire after 1850 when the Empire began to fall.
> 
> Rejecting the connection of any Jew descendant of Jews who lived on the land and made a Nation out of it.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Still, your endless rejectionism and denialism of who the Jews are, will never take away from them the 1 % they worked hard for and GAINED legally to recreate their Nation.
> 
> sniff....
Click to expand...

You are ducking the issue.

How many European Zionists had ancestors who lost land to the "Arabs?"


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.
> 
> Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arabs had no deeds.  They invaded in the 7th century.  That some are now called Palestinians since 1964, for the sake of destroying their hated Jews' Nation, does not grant them the right to the region of Palestine.
> The Arabs had no deeds during the Ottoman time, either.  Either one, Jew or Arab, only got to buy land from the Ottoman Empire after 1850 when the Empire began to fall.
> 
> Rejecting the connection of any Jew descendant of Jews who lived on the land and made a Nation out of it.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Still, your endless rejectionism and denialism of who the Jews are, will never take away from them the 1 % they worked hard for and GAINED legally to recreate their Nation.
> 
> sniff....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the issue.
> 
> How many European Zionists had ancestors who lost land to the "Arabs?"
Click to expand...


All had relatives in Palestine. All had a land named after them.
Jews are a small tribe.

Some Jews from Europe literally lost lands to Arabs in Jerusalem, Jordan and Syria.
Many left to other lands including Europe exactly because of Arab invasions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.
> 
> Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arabs had no deeds.  They invaded in the 7th century.  That some are now called Palestinians since 1964, for the sake of destroying their hated Jews' Nation, does not grant them the right to the region of Palestine.
> The Arabs had no deeds during the Ottoman time, either.  Either one, Jew or Arab, only got to buy land from the Ottoman Empire after 1850 when the Empire began to fall.
> 
> Rejecting the connection of any Jew descendant of Jews who lived on the land and made a Nation out of it.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Still, your endless rejectionism and denialism of who the Jews are, will never take away from them the 1 % they worked hard for and GAINED legally to recreate their Nation.
> 
> sniff....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the issue.
> 
> How many European Zionists had ancestors who lost land to the "Arabs?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All had relatives in Palestine. All had a land named after them.
> Jews are a small tribe.
> 
> Some Jews from Europe literally lost lands to Arabs in Jerusalem, Jordan and Syria.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to prove your claim?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
> 
> 
> 
> For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.
> 
> Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arabs had no deeds.  They invaded in the 7th century.  That some are now called Palestinians since 1964, for the sake of destroying their hated Jews' Nation, does not grant them the right to the region of Palestine.
> The Arabs had no deeds during the Ottoman time, either.  Either one, Jew or Arab, only got to buy land from the Ottoman Empire after 1850 when the Empire began to fall.
> 
> Rejecting the connection of any Jew descendant of Jews who lived on the land and made a Nation out of it.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Still, your endless rejectionism and denialism of who the Jews are, will never take away from them the 1 % they worked hard for and GAINED legally to recreate their Nation.
> 
> sniff....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the issue.
> 
> How many European Zionists had ancestors who lost land to the "Arabs?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All had relatives in Palestine. All had a land named after them.
> Jews are a small tribe.
> 
> Some Jews from Europe literally lost lands to Arabs in Jerusalem, Jordan and Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any evidence to prove your claim?
Click to expand...

You are a denialist.  No proof is good enough for you. 

For you, the Arabs bought land, but not the Jews.
The Arabs lost land, but not the Jews.
The Arabs were expelled, but not the Jews.

The Jewish Agency had helped buy a lot of the swamps and deserts the Arabs did not want.  Tel Aviv was a SWAMP.  Look at it now !!!!!

Jews owned lands in Gaza till 1920.  What happened that year?
Or the Jews in TranJordan by 1925? Or the Jews of Hebron until 1929?

Not ONE of those Jews owned their homes or lands?

Because you say so?

You show us all the evidence of Arabs, Turks and others having deeds to lands they say is rightfully theirs.  As in ALL of Gaza, TransJordan, Judea, Samaria, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.

Where are the Arab, etc deeds for all of those places where the Jews lived, since you insist Jews owned nothing, bought nothing at any time, had no deeds to their homes, etc?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
> 
> 
> 
> For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.
> 
> Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arabs had no deeds.  They invaded in the 7th century.  That some are now called Palestinians since 1964, for the sake of destroying their hated Jews' Nation, does not grant them the right to the region of Palestine.
> The Arabs had no deeds during the Ottoman time, either.  Either one, Jew or Arab, only got to buy land from the Ottoman Empire after 1850 when the Empire began to fall.
> 
> Rejecting the connection of any Jew descendant of Jews who lived on the land and made a Nation out of it.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Still, your endless rejectionism and denialism of who the Jews are, will never take away from them the 1 % they worked hard for and GAINED legally to recreate their Nation.
> 
> sniff....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the issue.
> 
> How many European Zionists had ancestors who lost land to the "Arabs?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All had relatives in Palestine. All had a land named after them.
> Jews are a small tribe.
> 
> Some Jews from Europe literally lost lands to Arabs in Jerusalem, Jordan and Syria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any evidence to prove your claim?
Click to expand...


The evidence is in the Turkish and British records, which the Arabs themselves are reluctant to present fully. What we usually get are big headlines about Arabs claims deeds in Ottoman records but no actual documents are presented in full, exactly because of long record of Jewish deeds and battle for them.
It's a serious court battle Israeli Jews have succeeded in many cases, this is exactly the way Jews implement to return to certain houses in Hebron and Jerusalem - *Ottoman records.*


----------



## Sixties Fan

Israel to Translate Ottoman Documents Proving Jews Bought Judea, Samaria Land


----------



## Sixties Fan

https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore

I'll tell You even more than that -

Every Jewish community, be it in Iraq, Italy, France or Turkey have a direct deed of participation in buying and keeping land in Israel for millenias, by a network of support, aid and donation between ALL Jewish communities.

Should we start with a list of Shadarim to all European countries with Jewish communities?
Because we do have a loooooong list of people making exactly that connection:

Shadarim


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you have any evidence to prove your claim?



The criteria for belonging to a collective Peoples is self-identification and acceptance within the group -- usually because of a shared history and culture.  This is the accepted criteria all over the world and for all Peoples.  It is the definition of "Palestinian" as a Peoples.  

The ridiculousness of claiming that there is no connection between today's Jewish Peoples and the Jewish Peoples in their time and place of origin can not be overstated.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence to prove your claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The criteria for belonging to a collective Peoples is self-identification and acceptance within the group -- usually because of a shared history and culture.  This is the accepted criteria all over the world and for all Peoples.  It is the definition of "Palestinian" as a Peoples.
> 
> The ridiculousness of claiming that there is no connection between today's Jewish Peoples and the Jewish Peoples in their time and place of origin can not be overstated.
Click to expand...

You are ducking the question


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence to prove your claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The criteria for belonging to a collective Peoples is self-identification and acceptance within the group -- usually because of a shared history and culture.  This is the accepted criteria all over the world and for all Peoples.  It is the definition of "Palestinian" as a Peoples.
> 
> The ridiculousness of claiming that there is no connection between today's Jewish Peoples and the Jewish Peoples in their time and place of origin can not be overstated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ducking the question
Click to expand...


I am pointing out how ridiculous the question is.  Peoples don't need "evidence" that they are Peoples.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in your statement you acknowledge YOUR TERRORISM AND UNCONTROLLED HATE...thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its terrorism to state (truthfully) that the Jewish people have an historical connection to the land of Israel?!  Get bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For centuries before the Zionist settler colonial project there were no Jews going up to Palestinians with deed in hand claiming his land.
> 
> Few, if any, European Zionists had any ancestors from that area. How can they say that they are reclaiming land that was never theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arabs had no deeds.  They invaded in the 7th century.  That some are now called Palestinians since 1964, for the sake of destroying their hated Jews' Nation, does not grant them the right to the region of Palestine.
> The Arabs had no deeds during the Ottoman time, either.  Either one, Jew or Arab, only got to buy land from the Ottoman Empire after 1850 when the Empire began to fall.
> 
> Rejecting the connection of any Jew descendant of Jews who lived on the land and made a Nation out of it.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Still, your endless rejectionism and denialism of who the Jews are, will never take away from them the 1 % they worked hard for and GAINED legally to recreate their Nation.
> 
> sniff....
Click to expand...

PALESTINIANS NEVER HATED JEWS and lived with a few real Jews for over a thousand years....the only people who HATE ARE THE ZIONISTS and they hate everyone...it is you who are Shameless and Shameful(look the words up)


----------



## Sixties Fan

1890
The term "Zionism" is coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal _Self Emancipation_ and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel

Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia

[ Let us look at Judeophobia in the 19th century alone, before the term Zionism was coined, and before the first Zionist immigration occurred.  
Why did Arabs attack real Jews in that century anywhere in Arab conquered land? Or any other century before it?

Weren't the Jews expelled by the Inquisition in Europe Real Jews?
Why would Europe expel them if they were not the real ones.
Easier to just force them to convert back to Christianity, as many actually were.

DIdn't the Nazis consider all the Jews in Europe to be Real Jews, and that is why they ended up killing them, as Husseini, in the Region of Palestine, did not want any more real Jews to come to that region and reclaim their land, and recreate their nation with the Mandate for Palestine? ]

*Nineteenth century*
The Damascus affair was an accusation of ritual murder and a blood libel against Jews in Damascus in 1840. On February 5, 1840, Franciscan Capuchin friar Father Thomas and his Greek servant were reported missing, never to be seen again. The Turkish governor and the French consul Ratti-Menton believed accusations of ritual murder and blood libel, as the alleged murder occurred before the Jewish Passover. An investigation was staged, and Solomon Negrin, a Jewish barber, confessed under torture and accused other Jews. Two other Jews died under torture, and one (Moses Abulafia) converted to Islam to escape torture. More arrests and atrocities followed, culminating in 63 Jewish children being held hostage and mob attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. International outrage led to Ibrahim Pasha in Egypt ordering an investigation. Negotiations in Alexandria eventually secured the unconditional release and recognition of innocence of the nine prisoners still remaining alive (out of thirteen). Later in Constantinople, Moses Montefiore (leader of the British Jewish community) persuaded Sultan Abdülmecid I to issue a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire:

... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth....

Nevertheless, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jaffa (1876), Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), and Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891).[17]

The Dreyfus affair of the late nineteenth century had consequences in the Arab world. Passionate outbursts of antisemitism in France were echoed in areas of French influence, especially Maronite Lebanon. The Muslim Arab press, however, was sympathetic to the falsely accused Captain Dreyfus, and criticized the persecution of Jews in France.[18]

Antisemitism in the Arab world - Wikipedia

In other words, before Herzl and the need to recreate the Sovereign Jewish Nation on their ancient homeland, All Jews were REAL JEWS.

All the way up to 1948 or 1967, all the Jews in the world were still REAL JEWS.

Sometime  "after" 1967 all the Jews who had resided in Europe before they returned to their ancient homeland became "fictional, converted Jews, non indigenous to the Land of Israel"

Those Jews from Europe were suddenly converts from a Central Asian Turcic (Non European) land called Khazar where the monarchy had allegedly converted in the 9th or 10th century CE.

And somehow......they managed not only to end up having European looks (blonde, red hair, blue eyed, green eyed, light skin)
but they also managed to multiply to about 6 or more Millions in number, while remained isolated from most other Christian groups in that continent.


I say.......isn't that a most fantastic people, that they could have succeeded in such an amazing thing, not achieved by any other group in the world?

Khazars......I applaud you.  You are more brilliant than all Real Jews put together, from Abraham to David, to Solomon, to Maimonides.
And all the Real Jews who still live on the land "amongst you".


Am Israel Chai !!!


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> 1890
> The term "Zionism" is coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal _Self Emancipation_ and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel
> 
> Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia
> 
> [ Let us look at Judeophobia in the 19th century alone, before the term Zionism was coined, and before the first Zionist immigration occurred.
> Why did Arabs attack real Jews in that century anywhere in Arab conquered land? Or any other century before it?
> 
> Weren't the Jews expelled by the Inquisition in Europe Real Jews?
> Why would Europe expel them if they were not the real ones.
> Easier to just force them to convert back to Christianity, as many actually were.
> 
> DIdn't the Nazis consider all the Jews in Europe to be Real Jews, and that is why they ended up killing them, as Husseini, in the Region of Palestine, did not want any more real Jews to come to that region and reclaim their land, and recreate their nation with the Mandate for Palestine? ]
> 
> *Nineteenth century*
> The Damascus affair was an accusation of ritual murder and a blood libel against Jews in Damascus in 1840. On February 5, 1840, Franciscan Capuchin friar Father Thomas and his Greek servant were reported missing, never to be seen again. The Turkish governor and the French consul Ratti-Menton believed accusations of ritual murder and blood libel, as the alleged murder occurred before the Jewish Passover. An investigation was staged, and Solomon Negrin, a Jewish barber, confessed under torture and accused other Jews. Two other Jews died under torture, and one (Moses Abulafia) converted to Islam to escape torture. More arrests and atrocities followed, culminating in 63 Jewish children being held hostage and mob attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. International outrage led to Ibrahim Pasha in Egypt ordering an investigation. Negotiations in Alexandria eventually secured the unconditional release and recognition of innocence of the nine prisoners still remaining alive (out of thirteen). Later in Constantinople, Moses Montefiore (leader of the British Jewish community) persuaded Sultan Abdülmecid I to issue a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire:
> 
> ... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth....
> 
> Nevertheless, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jaffa (1876), Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), and Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891).[17]
> 
> The Dreyfus affair of the late nineteenth century had consequences in the Arab world. Passionate outbursts of antisemitism in France were echoed in areas of French influence, especially Maronite Lebanon. The Muslim Arab press, however, was sympathetic to the falsely accused Captain Dreyfus, and criticized the persecution of Jews in France.[18]
> 
> Antisemitism in the Arab world - Wikipedia
> 
> In other words, before Herzl and the need to recreate the Sovereign Jewish Nation on their ancient homeland, All Jews were REAL JEWS.
> 
> All the way up to 1948 or 1967, all the Jews in the world were still REAL JEWS.
> 
> Sometime  "after" 1967 all the Jews who had resided in Europe before they returned to their ancient homeland became "fictional, converted Jews, non indigenous to the Land of Israel"
> 
> Those Jews from Europe were suddenly converts from a Central Asian Turcic (Non European) land called Khazar where the monarchy had allegedly converted in the 9th or 10th century CE.
> 
> And somehow......they managed not only to end up having European looks (blonde, red hair, blue eyed, green eyed, light skin)
> but they also managed to multiply to about 6 or more Millions in number, while remained isolated from most other Christian groups in that continent.
> 
> 
> I say.......isn't that a most fantastic people, that they could have succeeded in such an amazing thing, not achieved by any other group in the world?
> 
> Khazars......I applaud you.  You are more brilliant than all Real Jews put together, from Abraham to David, to Solomon, to Maimonides.
> And all the Real Jews who still live on the land "amongst you".
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !!!


PATHETIC RAMBLINGS FROM A NON JEW ZIONIST TRASH,TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE.....SHE MENTIONS HOW THE JEWS,WERE EXPELLED AND SLAUGHTERED IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE....NOTE ChRiStIaN

A PLASTIC PIECE OF PROSE FROM A TRUE ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC,What FOOL would mutter that Synthetic Khazars(a ghastly people at the best of times) YOU ARE MORE BRILLIANT THAN ALL "REAL JEWS"(60's Words!!!!!!!!)...put together from Abraham to David,to Solomon to ?

Incredibly the writer has admitted he/she/it that Zionists are Synthetic and the Convertion to Jewish forebears is a LIE..WHAT AN IDIOT AND TOTAL DEGREGATION OF THE Real and only Jewish Lineage ....QUITE DISGUSTING but the Zionist Lie of their existence

I was right all along....Banish these none Jews out of Palestine and send them to Babylon...Sinners,where you going to run to,where you gonna hide...st

You can applaud Khazars as much as you like but don't make out you have any claim to the Holy Land of Palestine....you Fraud/s...Judea is for Real Jews NOT SOME LOUSY GROUP OF NON JEWS.....ZIONISTS ARE SICK OF MIND COMPLETELY...GET OUT OF Palestine,you have NO RIGHT TO BE THERE...GO BACK TO WHERE YOU ORIGINALLY CAME.......AND LEAVE THIS LAND TO THE REAL AND ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLES....Real Jews and Palestinians as GOD DECREED.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> 1890
> The term "Zionism" is coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal _Self Emancipation_ and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel
> 
> Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia
> 
> [ Let us look at Judeophobia in the 19th century alone, before the term Zionism was coined, and before the first Zionist immigration occurred.
> Why did Arabs attack real Jews in that century anywhere in Arab conquered land? Or any other century before it?
> 
> Weren't the Jews expelled by the Inquisition in Europe Real Jews?
> Why would Europe expel them if they were not the real ones.
> Easier to just force them to convert back to Christianity, as many actually were.
> 
> DIdn't the Nazis consider all the Jews in Europe to be Real Jews, and that is why they ended up killing them, as Husseini, in the Region of Palestine, did not want any more real Jews to come to that region and reclaim their land, and recreate their nation with the Mandate for Palestine? ]
> 
> *Nineteenth century*
> The Damascus affair was an accusation of ritual murder and a blood libel against Jews in Damascus in 1840. On February 5, 1840, Franciscan Capuchin friar Father Thomas and his Greek servant were reported missing, never to be seen again. The Turkish governor and the French consul Ratti-Menton believed accusations of ritual murder and blood libel, as the alleged murder occurred before the Jewish Passover. An investigation was staged, and Solomon Negrin, a Jewish barber, confessed under torture and accused other Jews. Two other Jews died under torture, and one (Moses Abulafia) converted to Islam to escape torture. More arrests and atrocities followed, culminating in 63 Jewish children being held hostage and mob attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. International outrage led to Ibrahim Pasha in Egypt ordering an investigation. Negotiations in Alexandria eventually secured the unconditional release and recognition of innocence of the nine prisoners still remaining alive (out of thirteen). Later in Constantinople, Moses Montefiore (leader of the British Jewish community) persuaded Sultan Abdülmecid I to issue a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire:
> 
> ... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth....
> 
> Nevertheless, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jaffa (1876), Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), and Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891).[17]
> 
> The Dreyfus affair of the late nineteenth century had consequences in the Arab world. Passionate outbursts of antisemitism in France were echoed in areas of French influence, especially Maronite Lebanon. The Muslim Arab press, however, was sympathetic to the falsely accused Captain Dreyfus, and criticized the persecution of Jews in France.[18]
> 
> Antisemitism in the Arab world - Wikipedia
> 
> In other words, before Herzl and the need to recreate the Sovereign Jewish Nation on their ancient homeland, All Jews were REAL JEWS.
> 
> All the way up to 1948 or 1967, all the Jews in the world were still REAL JEWS.
> 
> Sometime  "after" 1967 all the Jews who had resided in Europe before they returned to their ancient homeland became "fictional, converted Jews, non indigenous to the Land of Israel"
> 
> Those Jews from Europe were suddenly converts from a Central Asian Turcic (Non European) land called Khazar where the monarchy had allegedly converted in the 9th or 10th century CE.
> 
> And somehow......they managed not only to end up having European looks (blonde, red hair, blue eyed, green eyed, light skin)
> but they also managed to multiply to about 6 or more Millions in number, while remained isolated from most other Christian groups in that continent.
> 
> 
> I say.......isn't that a most fantastic people, that they could have succeeded in such an amazing thing, not achieved by any other group in the world?
> 
> Khazars......I applaud you.  You are more brilliant than all Real Jews put together, from Abraham to David, to Solomon, to Maimonides.
> And all the Real Jews who still live on the land "amongst you".
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !!!


What a load of Defecation in one Post...Yah Nuts


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1890
> The term "Zionism" is coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal _Self Emancipation_ and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel
> 
> Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia
> 
> [ Let us look at Judeophobia in the 19th century alone, before the term Zionism was coined, and before the first Zionist immigration occurred.
> Why did Arabs attack real Jews in that century anywhere in Arab conquered land? Or any other century before it?
> 
> Weren't the Jews expelled by the Inquisition in Europe Real Jews?
> Why would Europe expel them if they were not the real ones.
> Easier to just force them to convert back to Christianity, as many actually were.
> 
> DIdn't the Nazis consider all the Jews in Europe to be Real Jews, and that is why they ended up killing them, as Husseini, in the Region of Palestine, did not want any more real Jews to come to that region and reclaim their land, and recreate their nation with the Mandate for Palestine? ]
> 
> *Nineteenth century*
> The Damascus affair was an accusation of ritual murder and a blood libel against Jews in Damascus in 1840. On February 5, 1840, Franciscan Capuchin friar Father Thomas and his Greek servant were reported missing, never to be seen again. The Turkish governor and the French consul Ratti-Menton believed accusations of ritual murder and blood libel, as the alleged murder occurred before the Jewish Passover. An investigation was staged, and Solomon Negrin, a Jewish barber, confessed under torture and accused other Jews. Two other Jews died under torture, and one (Moses Abulafia) converted to Islam to escape torture. More arrests and atrocities followed, culminating in 63 Jewish children being held hostage and mob attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. International outrage led to Ibrahim Pasha in Egypt ordering an investigation. Negotiations in Alexandria eventually secured the unconditional release and recognition of innocence of the nine prisoners still remaining alive (out of thirteen). Later in Constantinople, Moses Montefiore (leader of the British Jewish community) persuaded Sultan Abdülmecid I to issue a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire:
> 
> ... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth....
> 
> Nevertheless, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jaffa (1876), Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), and Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891).[17]
> 
> The Dreyfus affair of the late nineteenth century had consequences in the Arab world. Passionate outbursts of antisemitism in France were echoed in areas of French influence, especially Maronite Lebanon. The Muslim Arab press, however, was sympathetic to the falsely accused Captain Dreyfus, and criticized the persecution of Jews in France.[18]
> 
> Antisemitism in the Arab world - Wikipedia
> 
> In other words, before Herzl and the need to recreate the Sovereign Jewish Nation on their ancient homeland, All Jews were REAL JEWS.
> 
> All the way up to 1948 or 1967, all the Jews in the world were still REAL JEWS.
> 
> Sometime  "after" 1967 all the Jews who had resided in Europe before they returned to their ancient homeland became "fictional, converted Jews, non indigenous to the Land of Israel"
> 
> Those Jews from Europe were suddenly converts from a Central Asian Turcic (Non European) land called Khazar where the monarchy had allegedly converted in the 9th or 10th century CE.
> 
> And somehow......they managed not only to end up having European looks (blonde, red hair, blue eyed, green eyed, light skin)
> but they also managed to multiply to about 6 or more Millions in number, while remained isolated from most other Christian groups in that continent.
> 
> 
> I say.......isn't that a most fantastic people, that they could have succeeded in such an amazing thing, not achieved by any other group in the world?
> 
> Khazars......I applaud you.  You are more brilliant than all Real Jews put together, from Abraham to David, to Solomon, to Maimonides.
> And all the Real Jews who still live on the land "amongst you".
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !!!
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of Defecation in one Post...Yah Nuts
Click to expand...

Steve seems to have god scream in his ear all the time.

I am sorry for your ears, Steve.  It truly affects the rest of your senses.

Does not like history, does not understand jokes written in a post.




But still....

Am Israel Chai.

The People of Israel Live (being sovereign again of their ancient homeland)


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence to prove your claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The criteria for belonging to a collective Peoples is self-identification and acceptance within the group -- usually because of a shared history and culture.  This is the accepted criteria all over the world and for all Peoples.  It is the definition of "Palestinian" as a Peoples.
> 
> The ridiculousness of claiming that there is no connection between today's Jewish Peoples and the Jewish Peoples in their time and place of origin can not be overstated.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.....I could believe I was an Eskimo or even American or even a Jew or Arab or Jaine but of course it would not be reality and to continue to claim as much would be a LIE,and eventually create MENTAL ILLNESS...of believing in something untrue is True...That is why Zionists are all Mentally Ill....They think Zion but are closer to Mayan,,,Sad so Sad..

I'm theliq...Ever Living,Ever Faithful,Ever Sure.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1890
> The term "Zionism" is coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal _Self Emancipation_ and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel
> 
> Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia
> 
> [ Let us look at Judeophobia in the 19th century alone, before the term Zionism was coined, and before the first Zionist immigration occurred.
> Why did Arabs attack real Jews in that century anywhere in Arab conquered land? Or any other century before it?
> 
> Weren't the Jews expelled by the Inquisition in Europe Real Jews?
> Why would Europe expel them if they were not the real ones.
> Easier to just force them to convert back to Christianity, as many actually were.
> 
> DIdn't the Nazis consider all the Jews in Europe to be Real Jews, and that is why they ended up killing them, as Husseini, in the Region of Palestine, did not want any more real Jews to come to that region and reclaim their land, and recreate their nation with the Mandate for Palestine? ]
> 
> *Nineteenth century*
> The Damascus affair was an accusation of ritual murder and a blood libel against Jews in Damascus in 1840. On February 5, 1840, Franciscan Capuchin friar Father Thomas and his Greek servant were reported missing, never to be seen again. The Turkish governor and the French consul Ratti-Menton believed accusations of ritual murder and blood libel, as the alleged murder occurred before the Jewish Passover. An investigation was staged, and Solomon Negrin, a Jewish barber, confessed under torture and accused other Jews. Two other Jews died under torture, and one (Moses Abulafia) converted to Islam to escape torture. More arrests and atrocities followed, culminating in 63 Jewish children being held hostage and mob attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. International outrage led to Ibrahim Pasha in Egypt ordering an investigation. Negotiations in Alexandria eventually secured the unconditional release and recognition of innocence of the nine prisoners still remaining alive (out of thirteen). Later in Constantinople, Moses Montefiore (leader of the British Jewish community) persuaded Sultan Abdülmecid I to issue a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire:
> 
> ... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth....
> 
> Nevertheless, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jaffa (1876), Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), and Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891).[17]
> 
> The Dreyfus affair of the late nineteenth century had consequences in the Arab world. Passionate outbursts of antisemitism in France were echoed in areas of French influence, especially Maronite Lebanon. The Muslim Arab press, however, was sympathetic to the falsely accused Captain Dreyfus, and criticized the persecution of Jews in France.[18]
> 
> Antisemitism in the Arab world - Wikipedia
> 
> In other words, before Herzl and the need to recreate the Sovereign Jewish Nation on their ancient homeland, All Jews were REAL JEWS.
> 
> All the way up to 1948 or 1967, all the Jews in the world were still REAL JEWS.
> 
> Sometime  "after" 1967 all the Jews who had resided in Europe before they returned to their ancient homeland became "fictional, converted Jews, non indigenous to the Land of Israel"
> 
> Those Jews from Europe were suddenly converts from a Central Asian Turcic (Non European) land called Khazar where the monarchy had allegedly converted in the 9th or 10th century CE.
> 
> And somehow......they managed not only to end up having European looks (blonde, red hair, blue eyed, green eyed, light skin)
> but they also managed to multiply to about 6 or more Millions in number, while remained isolated from most other Christian groups in that continent.
> 
> 
> I say.......isn't that a most fantastic people, that they could have succeeded in such an amazing thing, not achieved by any other group in the world?
> 
> Khazars......I applaud you.  You are more brilliant than all Real Jews put together, from Abraham to David, to Solomon, to Maimonides.
> And all the Real Jews who still live on the land "amongst you".
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !!!
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of Defecation in one Post...Yah Nuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve seems to have god scream in his ear all the time.
> 
> I am sorry for your ears, Steve.  It truly affects the rest of your senses.
> 
> Does not like history, does not understand jokes written in a post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But still....
> 
> Am Israel Chai.
> 
> The People of Israel Live (being sovereign again of their ancient homeland)
Click to expand...

SAD SO SAD,to see someone having a Delusional Breakdown....I want to help you,maybe my soothing,loving hands can gently caress sweet scented oils onto your head and bring you back to health,again....steven


----------



## admonit

theliq said:


> PATHETIC RAMBLINGS FROM A NON JEW ZIONIST TRASH,TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE.....SHE MENTIONS HOW THE JEWS,WERE EXPELLED AND SLAUGHTERED IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE....NOTE ChRiStIaN
> 
> A PLASTIC PIECE OF PROSE FROM A TRUE ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC,What FOOL would mutter that Synthetic Khazars(a ghastly people at the best of times) YOU ARE MORE BRILLIANT THAN ALL "REAL JEWS"(60's Words!!!!!!!!)...put together from Abraham to David,to Solomon to ?
> 
> Incredibly the writer has admitted he/she/it that Zionists are Synthetic and the Convertion to Jewish forebears is a LIE..WHAT AN IDIOT AND TOTAL DEGREGATION OF THE Real and only Jewish Lineage ....QUITE DISGUSTING but the Zionist Lie of their existence
> 
> I was right all along....Banish these none Jews out of Palestine and send them to Babylon...Sinners,where you going to run to,where you gonna hide...st
> 
> You can applaud Khazars as much as you like but don't make out you have any claim to the Holy Land of Palestine....you Fraud/s...Judea is for Real Jews NOT SOME LOUSY GROUP OF NON JEWS.....ZIONISTS ARE SICK OF MIND COMPLETELY...GET OUT OF Palestine,you have NO RIGHT TO BE THERE...GO BACK TO WHERE YOU ORIGINALLY CAME.......AND LEAVE THIS LAND TO THE REAL AND ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLES....Real Jews and Palestinians as GOD DECREED.


Do you add water to your whisky?


----------



## theliq

admonit said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> PATHETIC RAMBLINGS FROM A NON JEW ZIONIST TRASH,TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE.....SHE MENTIONS HOW THE JEWS,WERE EXPELLED AND SLAUGHTERED IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE....NOTE ChRiStIaN
> 
> A PLASTIC PIECE OF PROSE FROM A TRUE ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC,What FOOL would mutter that Synthetic Khazars(a ghastly people at the best of times) YOU ARE MORE BRILLIANT THAN ALL "REAL JEWS"(60's Words!!!!!!!!)...put together from Abraham to David,to Solomon to ?
> 
> Incredibly the writer has admitted he/she/it that Zionists are Synthetic and the Convertion to Jewish forebears is a LIE..WHAT AN IDIOT AND TOTAL DEGREGATION OF THE Real and only Jewish Lineage ....QUITE DISGUSTING but the Zionist Lie of their existence
> 
> I was right all along....Banish these none Jews out of Palestine and send them to Babylon...Sinners,where you going to run to,where you gonna hide...st
> 
> You can applaud Khazars as much as you like but don't make out you have any claim to the Holy Land of Palestine....you Fraud/s...Judea is for Real Jews NOT SOME LOUSY GROUP OF NON JEWS.....ZIONISTS ARE SICK OF MIND COMPLETELY...GET OUT OF Palestine,you have NO RIGHT TO BE THERE...GO BACK TO WHERE YOU ORIGINALLY CAME.......AND LEAVE THIS LAND TO THE REAL AND ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLES....Real Jews and Palestinians as GOD DECREED.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you add water to your whisky?
Click to expand...

Nope,Just expose THE RAVINGS OF A LUNATIC ZIONIST,TRASH TALK...how is Downtown Jerusalem these days


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> admonit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> PATHETIC RAMBLINGS FROM A NON JEW ZIONIST TRASH,TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE.....SHE MENTIONS HOW THE JEWS,WERE EXPELLED AND SLAUGHTERED IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE....NOTE ChRiStIaN
> 
> A PLASTIC PIECE OF PROSE FROM A TRUE ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC,What FOOL would mutter that Synthetic Khazars(a ghastly people at the best of times) YOU ARE MORE BRILLIANT THAN ALL "REAL JEWS"(60's Words!!!!!!!!)...put together from Abraham to David,to Solomon to ?
> 
> Incredibly the writer has admitted he/she/it that Zionists are Synthetic and the Convertion to Jewish forebears is a LIE..WHAT AN IDIOT AND TOTAL DEGREGATION OF THE Real and only Jewish Lineage ....QUITE DISGUSTING but the Zionist Lie of their existence
> 
> I was right all along....Banish these none Jews out of Palestine and send them to Babylon...Sinners,where you going to run to,where you gonna hide...st
> 
> You can applaud Khazars as much as you like but don't make out you have any claim to the Holy Land of Palestine....you Fraud/s...Judea is for Real Jews NOT SOME LOUSY GROUP OF NON JEWS.....ZIONISTS ARE SICK OF MIND COMPLETELY...GET OUT OF Palestine,you have NO RIGHT TO BE THERE...GO BACK TO WHERE YOU ORIGINALLY CAME.......AND LEAVE THIS LAND TO THE REAL AND ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLES....Real Jews and Palestinians as GOD DECREED.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you add water to your whisky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope,Just expose THE RAVINGS OF A LUNATIC ZIONIST,TRASH TALK...how is Downtown Jerusalem these days
Click to expand...

When you do succeed.....with the exposing.......let us know.

So far, just like the BDS movement.......

.

Now, is there anything you have to add to this thread about the creation of the State of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate, or are you going to remain off topic?


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> admonit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> PATHETIC RAMBLINGS FROM A NON JEW ZIONIST TRASH,TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE.....SHE MENTIONS HOW THE JEWS,WERE EXPELLED AND SLAUGHTERED IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE....NOTE ChRiStIaN
> 
> A PLASTIC PIECE OF PROSE FROM A TRUE ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC,What FOOL would mutter that Synthetic Khazars(a ghastly people at the best of times) YOU ARE MORE BRILLIANT THAN ALL "REAL JEWS"(60's Words!!!!!!!!)...put together from Abraham to David,to Solomon to ?
> 
> Incredibly the writer has admitted he/she/it that Zionists are Synthetic and the Convertion to Jewish forebears is a LIE..WHAT AN IDIOT AND TOTAL DEGREGATION OF THE Real and only Jewish Lineage ....QUITE DISGUSTING but the Zionist Lie of their existence
> 
> I was right all along....Banish these none Jews out of Palestine and send them to Babylon...Sinners,where you going to run to,where you gonna hide...st
> 
> You can applaud Khazars as much as you like but don't make out you have any claim to the Holy Land of Palestine....you Fraud/s...Judea is for Real Jews NOT SOME LOUSY GROUP OF NON JEWS.....ZIONISTS ARE SICK OF MIND COMPLETELY...GET OUT OF Palestine,you have NO RIGHT TO BE THERE...GO BACK TO WHERE YOU ORIGINALLY CAME.......AND LEAVE THIS LAND TO THE REAL AND ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLES....Real Jews and Palestinians as GOD DECREED.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you add water to your whisky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope,Just expose THE RAVINGS OF A LUNATIC ZIONIST,TRASH TALK...how is Downtown Jerusalem these days
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you do succeed.....with the exposing.......let us know.
> 
> So far, just like the BDS movement.......
> 
> .
> 
> Now, is there anything you have to add to this thread about the creation of the State of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate, or are you going to remain off topic?
Click to expand...

Good 60's nice to see you are back with us,crikey I was getting worried about you...really

So it's back to the Baseball Bats again.....keep well,take the pressure off you body and mind.....ps the Only people who created Israel by intelligence,money,deception,murderous brutality,graft and theft were the Zionists....in some ways I have to admire them,if I was that way inclined but thankfully I AM NOT...that is one step too far for me..steve...it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> admonit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> PATHETIC RAMBLINGS FROM A NON JEW ZIONIST TRASH,TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE.....SHE MENTIONS HOW THE JEWS,WERE EXPELLED AND SLAUGHTERED IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE....NOTE ChRiStIaN
> 
> A PLASTIC PIECE OF PROSE FROM A TRUE ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC,What FOOL would mutter that Synthetic Khazars(a ghastly people at the best of times) YOU ARE MORE BRILLIANT THAN ALL "REAL JEWS"(60's Words!!!!!!!!)...put together from Abraham to David,to Solomon to ?
> 
> Incredibly the writer has admitted he/she/it that Zionists are Synthetic and the Convertion to Jewish forebears is a LIE..WHAT AN IDIOT AND TOTAL DEGREGATION OF THE Real and only Jewish Lineage ....QUITE DISGUSTING but the Zionist Lie of their existence
> 
> I was right all along....Banish these none Jews out of Palestine and send them to Babylon...Sinners,where you going to run to,where you gonna hide...st
> 
> You can applaud Khazars as much as you like but don't make out you have any claim to the Holy Land of Palestine....you Fraud/s...Judea is for Real Jews NOT SOME LOUSY GROUP OF NON JEWS.....ZIONISTS ARE SICK OF MIND COMPLETELY...GET OUT OF Palestine,you have NO RIGHT TO BE THERE...GO BACK TO WHERE YOU ORIGINALLY CAME.......AND LEAVE THIS LAND TO THE REAL AND ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLES....Real Jews and Palestinians as GOD DECREED.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you add water to your whisky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope,Just expose THE RAVINGS OF A LUNATIC ZIONIST,TRASH TALK...how is Downtown Jerusalem these days
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you do succeed.....with the exposing.......let us know.
> 
> So far, just like the BDS movement.......
> 
> .
> 
> Now, is there anything you have to add to this thread about the creation of the State of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate, or are you going to remain off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good 60's nice to see you are back with us,crikey I was getting worried about you...really
> 
> So it's back to the Baseball Bats again.....keep well,take the pressure off you body and mind.....ps the Only people who created Israel by intelligence,money,deception,murderous brutality,graft and theft were the Zionists....in some ways I have to admire them,if I was that way inclined but thankfully I AM NOT...that is one step too far for me..steve...it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Nazi.
You put all the qualities adopted by Christian and Muslim Arabs once Naziism was created and apply it full force against the legal creation of the State of Israel BY the descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans/Jews.

Let me show you who was a good friend of the Nazis:

Never-before-seen photos of Palestinian mufti with Hitler ties visiting Nazi Germany

Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood


-----------------
Not to speak of all the Nazis who moved to Egypt and Syria, and not to Israel:

Old Nazis Never Die


Yes, you are absolutely correct. 

<<.it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful>>

And they continue to succeed in influencing the Arab Christians and Muslims in the endless attempt to destroy Israel.


Too bad for all the Arabs who are dying only for a worthless cause.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> admonit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> PATHETIC RAMBLINGS FROM A NON JEW ZIONIST TRASH,TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE.....SHE MENTIONS HOW THE JEWS,WERE EXPELLED AND SLAUGHTERED IN CHRISTIAN EUROPE....NOTE ChRiStIaN
> 
> A PLASTIC PIECE OF PROSE FROM A TRUE ZIONIST TERRORIST SYNTHETIC,What FOOL would mutter that Synthetic Khazars(a ghastly people at the best of times) YOU ARE MORE BRILLIANT THAN ALL "REAL JEWS"(60's Words!!!!!!!!)...put together from Abraham to David,to Solomon to ?
> 
> Incredibly the writer has admitted he/she/it that Zionists are Synthetic and the Convertion to Jewish forebears is a LIE..WHAT AN IDIOT AND TOTAL DEGREGATION OF THE Real and only Jewish Lineage ....QUITE DISGUSTING but the Zionist Lie of their existence
> 
> I was right all along....Banish these none Jews out of Palestine and send them to Babylon...Sinners,where you going to run to,where you gonna hide...st
> 
> You can applaud Khazars as much as you like but don't make out you have any claim to the Holy Land of Palestine....you Fraud/s...Judea is for Real Jews NOT SOME LOUSY GROUP OF NON JEWS.....ZIONISTS ARE SICK OF MIND COMPLETELY...GET OUT OF Palestine,you have NO RIGHT TO BE THERE...GO BACK TO WHERE YOU ORIGINALLY CAME.......AND LEAVE THIS LAND TO THE REAL AND ONLY SEMITIC PEOPLES....Real Jews and Palestinians as GOD DECREED.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you add water to your whisky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope,Just expose THE RAVINGS OF A LUNATIC ZIONIST,TRASH TALK...how is Downtown Jerusalem these days
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you do succeed.....with the exposing.......let us know.
> 
> So far, just like the BDS movement.......
> 
> .
> 
> Now, is there anything you have to add to this thread about the creation of the State of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate, or are you going to remain off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good 60's nice to see you are back with us,crikey I was getting worried about you...really
> 
> So it's back to the Baseball Bats again.....keep well,take the pressure off you body and mind.....ps the Only people who created Israel by intelligence,money,deception,murderous brutality,graft and theft were the Zionists....in some ways I have to admire them,if I was that way inclined but thankfully I AM NOT...that is one step too far for me..steve...it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Mr. Nazi.
> You put all the qualities adopted by Christian and Muslim Arabs once Naziism was created and apply it full force against the legal creation of the State of Israel BY the descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans/Jews.
> 
> Let me show you who was a good friend of the Nazis:
> 
> Never-before-seen photos of Palestinian mufti with Hitler ties visiting Nazi Germany
> 
> Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood
> 
> 
> -----------------
> Not to speak of all the Nazis who moved to Egypt and Syria, and not to Israel:
> 
> Old Nazis Never Die
> 
> 
> Yes, you are absolutely correct.
> 
> <<.it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful>>
> 
> And they continue to succeed in influencing the Arab Christians and Muslims in the endless attempt to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> Too bad for all the Arabs who are dying only for a worthless cause.
Click to expand...

I'm NO NAZI as you know but you will persist in LYING....that mind of your again...SO SAD

The only Group who COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS AND HELPED SEND INNOCENT JEWS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS DELIBERATELY WERE THE ZIONISTS.....MOREOVER IN GERMANY IN THE 1930's CREATED ANTI-SEMITISM...which is the most Ironic thing of all...you need a History Lesson on Zionism...........Ghastly by the way ISRAEL DOES HAVE A NAZI MOVEMENT,mainly ex-Russian Jews...creating much discernment to the Israeli people  and the Government....YOU NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND REALITY IN 2018 or are you still in 1888,yeah that would be right...Nazi Collaborater...by the way no Nazis went to Syria or Egypt but mainly Argentina and central and South America.....EXCEPT THE NAZI ZIONIST COLLABORATERS who were given safe haven in ISRAEL....you ignorant Fool


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> admonit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you add water to your whisky?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,Just expose THE RAVINGS OF A LUNATIC ZIONIST,TRASH TALK...how is Downtown Jerusalem these days
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you do succeed.....with the exposing.......let us know.
> 
> So far, just like the BDS movement.......
> 
> .
> 
> Now, is there anything you have to add to this thread about the creation of the State of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate, or are you going to remain off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good 60's nice to see you are back with us,crikey I was getting worried about you...really
> 
> So it's back to the Baseball Bats again.....keep well,take the pressure off you body and mind.....ps the Only people who created Israel by intelligence,money,deception,murderous brutality,graft and theft were the Zionists....in some ways I have to admire them,if I was that way inclined but thankfully I AM NOT...that is one step too far for me..steve...it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Mr. Nazi.
> You put all the qualities adopted by Christian and Muslim Arabs once Naziism was created and apply it full force against the legal creation of the State of Israel BY the descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans/Jews.
> 
> Let me show you who was a good friend of the Nazis:
> 
> Never-before-seen photos of Palestinian mufti with Hitler ties visiting Nazi Germany
> 
> Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood
> 
> 
> -----------------
> Not to speak of all the Nazis who moved to Egypt and Syria, and not to Israel:
> 
> Old Nazis Never Die
> 
> 
> Yes, you are absolutely correct.
> 
> <<.it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful>>
> 
> And they continue to succeed in influencing the Arab Christians and Muslims in the endless attempt to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> Too bad for all the Arabs who are dying only for a worthless cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm NO NAZI as you know but you will persist in LYING....that mind of your again...SO SAD
> 
> The only Group who COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS AND HELPED SEND INNOCENT JEWS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS DELIBERATELY WERE THE ZIONISTS.....MOREOVER IN GERMANY IN THE 1930's CREATED ANTI-SEMITISM...which is the most Ironic thing of all...you need a History Lesson on Zionism...........Ghastly by the way ISRAEL DOES HAVE A NAZI MOVEMENT,mainly ex-Russian Jews...creating much discernment to the Israeli people  and the Government....YOU NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND REALITY IN 2018 or are you still in 1888,yeah that would be right...Nazi Collaborater...by the way no Nazis went to Syria or Egypt but mainly Argentina and central and South America.....EXCEPT THE NAZI ZIONIST COLLABORATERS who were given safe haven in ISRAEL....you ignorant Fool
Click to expand...

Hunt for most-wanted Nazi war criminal ends in Egypt

No German or other Nazis went to Israel.
The Russian Jews are Neo Nazis.  

Russia’s neo-Nazis unmasked — by Israeli Jewish filmmaker

Antisemitism in Germany has existed since the Christian Visigoth.
Check them out.

You have a problem with Jews saving other Jews from Nazi Germany, that is your problem.  Many non Jews also saved many Jews from Nazi Germany.


https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3231.pdf


Feat your eyes on all the righteous people who saved Jews during WWII.

List of Righteous Among the Nations by country - Wikipedia




Do you have anything else out of your trick hat?


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,Just expose THE RAVINGS OF A LUNATIC ZIONIST,TRASH TALK...how is Downtown Jerusalem these days
> 
> 
> 
> When you do succeed.....with the exposing.......let us know.
> 
> So far, just like the BDS movement.......
> 
> .
> 
> Now, is there anything you have to add to this thread about the creation of the State of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate, or are you going to remain off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good 60's nice to see you are back with us,crikey I was getting worried about you...really
> 
> So it's back to the Baseball Bats again.....keep well,take the pressure off you body and mind.....ps the Only people who created Israel by intelligence,money,deception,murderous brutality,graft and theft were the Zionists....in some ways I have to admire them,if I was that way inclined but thankfully I AM NOT...that is one step too far for me..steve...it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Mr. Nazi.
> You put all the qualities adopted by Christian and Muslim Arabs once Naziism was created and apply it full force against the legal creation of the State of Israel BY the descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans/Jews.
> 
> Let me show you who was a good friend of the Nazis:
> 
> Never-before-seen photos of Palestinian mufti with Hitler ties visiting Nazi Germany
> 
> Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood
> 
> 
> -----------------
> Not to speak of all the Nazis who moved to Egypt and Syria, and not to Israel:
> 
> Old Nazis Never Die
> 
> 
> Yes, you are absolutely correct.
> 
> <<.it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful>>
> 
> And they continue to succeed in influencing the Arab Christians and Muslims in the endless attempt to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> Too bad for all the Arabs who are dying only for a worthless cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm NO NAZI as you know but you will persist in LYING....that mind of your again...SO SAD
> 
> The only Group who COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS AND HELPED SEND INNOCENT JEWS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS DELIBERATELY WERE THE ZIONISTS.....MOREOVER IN GERMANY IN THE 1930's CREATED ANTI-SEMITISM...which is the most Ironic thing of all...you need a History Lesson on Zionism...........Ghastly by the way ISRAEL DOES HAVE A NAZI MOVEMENT,mainly ex-Russian Jews...creating much discernment to the Israeli people  and the Government....YOU NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND REALITY IN 2018 or are you still in 1888,yeah that would be right...Nazi Collaborater...by the way no Nazis went to Syria or Egypt but mainly Argentina and central and South America.....EXCEPT THE NAZI ZIONIST COLLABORATERS who were given safe haven in ISRAEL....you ignorant Fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt for most-wanted Nazi war criminal ends in Egypt
> 
> No German or other Nazis went to Israel.
> The Russian Jews are Neo Nazis.
> 
> Russia’s neo-Nazis unmasked — by Israeli Jewish filmmaker
> 
> Antisemitism in Germany has existed since the Christian Visigoth.
> Check them out.
> 
> You have a problem with Jews saving other Jews from Nazi Germany, that is your problem.  Many non Jews also saved many Jews from Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3231.pdf
> 
> 
> Feat your eyes on all the righteous people who saved Jews during WWII.
> 
> List of Righteous Among the Nations by country - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything else out of your trick hat?
Click to expand...

I just feel Sorry for U


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you do succeed.....with the exposing.......let us know.
> 
> So far, just like the BDS movement.......
> 
> .
> 
> Now, is there anything you have to add to this thread about the creation of the State of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate, or are you going to remain off topic?
> 
> 
> 
> Good 60's nice to see you are back with us,crikey I was getting worried about you...really
> 
> So it's back to the Baseball Bats again.....keep well,take the pressure off you body and mind.....ps the Only people who created Israel by intelligence,money,deception,murderous brutality,graft and theft were the Zionists....in some ways I have to admire them,if I was that way inclined but thankfully I AM NOT...that is one step too far for me..steve...it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Mr. Nazi.
> You put all the qualities adopted by Christian and Muslim Arabs once Naziism was created and apply it full force against the legal creation of the State of Israel BY the descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans/Jews.
> 
> Let me show you who was a good friend of the Nazis:
> 
> Never-before-seen photos of Palestinian mufti with Hitler ties visiting Nazi Germany
> 
> Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood
> 
> 
> -----------------
> Not to speak of all the Nazis who moved to Egypt and Syria, and not to Israel:
> 
> Old Nazis Never Die
> 
> 
> Yes, you are absolutely correct.
> 
> <<.it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful>>
> 
> And they continue to succeed in influencing the Arab Christians and Muslims in the endless attempt to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> Too bad for all the Arabs who are dying only for a worthless cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm NO NAZI as you know but you will persist in LYING....that mind of your again...SO SAD
> 
> The only Group who COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS AND HELPED SEND INNOCENT JEWS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS DELIBERATELY WERE THE ZIONISTS.....MOREOVER IN GERMANY IN THE 1930's CREATED ANTI-SEMITISM...which is the most Ironic thing of all...you need a History Lesson on Zionism...........Ghastly by the way ISRAEL DOES HAVE A NAZI MOVEMENT,mainly ex-Russian Jews...creating much discernment to the Israeli people  and the Government....YOU NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND REALITY IN 2018 or are you still in 1888,yeah that would be right...Nazi Collaborater...by the way no Nazis went to Syria or Egypt but mainly Argentina and central and South America.....EXCEPT THE NAZI ZIONIST COLLABORATERS who were given safe haven in ISRAEL....you ignorant Fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt for most-wanted Nazi war criminal ends in Egypt
> 
> No German or other Nazis went to Israel.
> The Russian Jews are Neo Nazis.
> 
> Russia’s neo-Nazis unmasked — by Israeli Jewish filmmaker
> 
> Antisemitism in Germany has existed since the Christian Visigoth.
> Check them out.
> 
> You have a problem with Jews saving other Jews from Nazi Germany, that is your problem.  Many non Jews also saved many Jews from Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3231.pdf
> 
> 
> Feat your eyes on all the righteous people who saved Jews during WWII.
> 
> List of Righteous Among the Nations by country - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything else out of your trick hat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just feel Sorry for U
Click to expand...

You cannot defend your half truths, or lack of truths and you feel sorry for me?

What you are sorry about is that you keep being caught in this non truths or half truths and have nowhere to turn to.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good 60's nice to see you are back with us,crikey I was getting worried about you...really
> 
> So it's back to the Baseball Bats again.....keep well,take the pressure off you body and mind.....ps the Only people who created Israel by intelligence,money,deception,murderous brutality,graft and theft were the Zionists....in some ways I have to admire them,if I was that way inclined but thankfully I AM NOT...that is one step too far for me..steve...it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Mr. Nazi.
> You put all the qualities adopted by Christian and Muslim Arabs once Naziism was created and apply it full force against the legal creation of the State of Israel BY the descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans/Jews.
> 
> Let me show you who was a good friend of the Nazis:
> 
> Never-before-seen photos of Palestinian mufti with Hitler ties visiting Nazi Germany
> 
> Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood
> 
> 
> -----------------
> Not to speak of all the Nazis who moved to Egypt and Syria, and not to Israel:
> 
> Old Nazis Never Die
> 
> 
> Yes, you are absolutely correct.
> 
> <<.it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful>>
> 
> And they continue to succeed in influencing the Arab Christians and Muslims in the endless attempt to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> Too bad for all the Arabs who are dying only for a worthless cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm NO NAZI as you know but you will persist in LYING....that mind of your again...SO SAD
> 
> The only Group who COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS AND HELPED SEND INNOCENT JEWS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS DELIBERATELY WERE THE ZIONISTS.....MOREOVER IN GERMANY IN THE 1930's CREATED ANTI-SEMITISM...which is the most Ironic thing of all...you need a History Lesson on Zionism...........Ghastly by the way ISRAEL DOES HAVE A NAZI MOVEMENT,mainly ex-Russian Jews...creating much discernment to the Israeli people  and the Government....YOU NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND REALITY IN 2018 or are you still in 1888,yeah that would be right...Nazi Collaborater...by the way no Nazis went to Syria or Egypt but mainly Argentina and central and South America.....EXCEPT THE NAZI ZIONIST COLLABORATERS who were given safe haven in ISRAEL....you ignorant Fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt for most-wanted Nazi war criminal ends in Egypt
> 
> No German or other Nazis went to Israel.
> The Russian Jews are Neo Nazis.
> 
> Russia’s neo-Nazis unmasked — by Israeli Jewish filmmaker
> 
> Antisemitism in Germany has existed since the Christian Visigoth.
> Check them out.
> 
> You have a problem with Jews saving other Jews from Nazi Germany, that is your problem.  Many non Jews also saved many Jews from Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3231.pdf
> 
> 
> Feat your eyes on all the righteous people who saved Jews during WWII.
> 
> List of Righteous Among the Nations by country - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything else out of your trick hat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just feel Sorry for U
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot defend your half truths, or lack of truths and you feel sorry for me?
> 
> What you are sorry about is that you keep being caught in this non truths or half truths and have nowhere to turn to.
Click to expand...

I just feel sorry for you


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Mr. Nazi.
> You put all the qualities adopted by Christian and Muslim Arabs once Naziism was created and apply it full force against the legal creation of the State of Israel BY the descendants of the Hebrews/Israelites/Judeans/Jews.
> 
> Let me show you who was a good friend of the Nazis:
> 
> Never-before-seen photos of Palestinian mufti with Hitler ties visiting Nazi Germany
> 
> Photos and Documents of Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood
> 
> 
> -----------------
> Not to speak of all the Nazis who moved to Egypt and Syria, and not to Israel:
> 
> Old Nazis Never Die
> 
> 
> Yes, you are absolutely correct.
> 
> <<.it was like the worst elements of the Nazis moved on Palestine and succeeded.....Awful>>
> 
> And they continue to succeed in influencing the Arab Christians and Muslims in the endless attempt to destroy Israel.
> 
> 
> Too bad for all the Arabs who are dying only for a worthless cause.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm NO NAZI as you know but you will persist in LYING....that mind of your again...SO SAD
> 
> The only Group who COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS AND HELPED SEND INNOCENT JEWS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS DELIBERATELY WERE THE ZIONISTS.....MOREOVER IN GERMANY IN THE 1930's CREATED ANTI-SEMITISM...which is the most Ironic thing of all...you need a History Lesson on Zionism...........Ghastly by the way ISRAEL DOES HAVE A NAZI MOVEMENT,mainly ex-Russian Jews...creating much discernment to the Israeli people  and the Government....YOU NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND REALITY IN 2018 or are you still in 1888,yeah that would be right...Nazi Collaborater...by the way no Nazis went to Syria or Egypt but mainly Argentina and central and South America.....EXCEPT THE NAZI ZIONIST COLLABORATERS who were given safe haven in ISRAEL....you ignorant Fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hunt for most-wanted Nazi war criminal ends in Egypt
> 
> No German or other Nazis went to Israel.
> The Russian Jews are Neo Nazis.
> 
> Russia’s neo-Nazis unmasked — by Israeli Jewish filmmaker
> 
> Antisemitism in Germany has existed since the Christian Visigoth.
> Check them out.
> 
> You have a problem with Jews saving other Jews from Nazi Germany, that is your problem.  Many non Jews also saved many Jews from Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3231.pdf
> 
> 
> Feat your eyes on all the righteous people who saved Jews during WWII.
> 
> List of Righteous Among the Nations by country - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything else out of your trick hat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just feel Sorry for U
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot defend your half truths, or lack of truths and you feel sorry for me?
> 
> What you are sorry about is that you keep being caught in this non truths or half truths and have nowhere to turn to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just feel sorry for you
Click to expand...

Good for you  

Now people can return to discussing the topic on this thread.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm NO NAZI as you know but you will persist in LYING....that mind of your again...SO SAD
> 
> The only Group who COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS AND HELPED SEND INNOCENT JEWS TO THE GAS CHAMBERS DELIBERATELY WERE THE ZIONISTS.....MOREOVER IN GERMANY IN THE 1930's CREATED ANTI-SEMITISM...which is the most Ironic thing of all...you need a History Lesson on Zionism...........Ghastly by the way ISRAEL DOES HAVE A NAZI MOVEMENT,mainly ex-Russian Jews...creating much discernment to the Israeli people  and the Government....YOU NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND REALITY IN 2018 or are you still in 1888,yeah that would be right...Nazi Collaborater...by the way no Nazis went to Syria or Egypt but mainly Argentina and central and South America.....EXCEPT THE NAZI ZIONIST COLLABORATERS who were given safe haven in ISRAEL....you ignorant Fool
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for most-wanted Nazi war criminal ends in Egypt
> 
> No German or other Nazis went to Israel.
> The Russian Jews are Neo Nazis.
> 
> Russia’s neo-Nazis unmasked — by Israeli Jewish filmmaker
> 
> Antisemitism in Germany has existed since the Christian Visigoth.
> Check them out.
> 
> You have a problem with Jews saving other Jews from Nazi Germany, that is your problem.  Many non Jews also saved many Jews from Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3231.pdf
> 
> 
> Feat your eyes on all the righteous people who saved Jews during WWII.
> 
> List of Righteous Among the Nations by country - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything else out of your trick hat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just feel Sorry for U
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot defend your half truths, or lack of truths and you feel sorry for me?
> 
> What you are sorry about is that you keep being caught in this non truths or half truths and have nowhere to turn to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just feel sorry for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you
> 
> Now people can return to discussing the topic on this thread.
Click to expand...

I feel so sorry for you


----------



## Sixties Fan

I just came upon the American Jewish Yearbook for 1914-1915, describing events of the year. Here are some of the events in Palestine at the time:

January. At Hebron, Jewish storekeepers are boycotted by Mohammedan women.

April. Minister of Interior removes Governor of Tiberias on complaint of Chief Rabbi of his laxity in protecting the Jews against Arab attacks.

May. Minister of Interior orders officiais in Palestine to repress all anti-Jewish manifestations.—Chief Rabbi waits on Minister of Interior and reads to him two violent articles in Arab journal Palestine, and warns him that any disorders that might result therefrom would create bad impression abroad.There were constant attacks by Arabs against the tiny Jewish community even then, as well as incitement against Jews in the Arab media and economic boycotts.
---

Pointedly, these attacks and incitement were not against Zionists, but Jews. And the Jews didn't attack any Arabs.

These are the idyllic, peaceful days that the Arab world wants to return to, when the Jews were defenseless and the Arabs could attack them with impunity.

(full article online)

Jews and Arabs living peacefully together ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Were the Arabs of Hebron as tolerant of Jews before the massacre as the Jews there claimed? Or was this a psychological defense mechanism that the Jews employed to shut their eyes to the truth?

The truth may very well be the latter. A book written in 1905 called The Jews of Many Lands, by Elkan Nathan Adler, describes Hebron Arabs as being the most intolerant of all:

 Hebron, or Khalil, the "City of Friendship," is perhaps the oldest city of the Holy Land, and in interest it vies with Jerusalem itself. Among us Jews it is reverently described as " the Burial Ground of our Fathers," and a pilgrimage thither is highly esteemed. The Mohammedans regard it with even more reverence as a sacred place than Jerusalem, for is it not the last resting-place of Abraham—el Khalil Allah—the friend of God and His great prophet? Their regard, although flattering to the founder of our race, carries with it the disadvantage that it makes the Hebronites the most fanatical of the followers of Islam, and the most intolerant.Christians cannot live at Hebron, and Jews there are treated as dogs. Curses both loud and deep greeted us as we walked round the Great Mosque, which encloses the Cave of Machpelah; but, as we did not understand the meaning of the imprecations or appreciate the delicacy or appropriateness of the choice epithets applied to us, and, as the missiles thrown at us were not well aimed, we could afford to treat our reception with amused nonchalance. Nowhere in the East did I meet with such bigotry as at Hebron, and it did not surprise me to learn that Dr. Stein, the medical man whom we sent out there some time ago, has no Mohammedans among his clientele, because the Hebronites, unlike the Mohammedans who live in Jerusalem and elsewhere are too utter fatalists to believe that medicine can arrest the progress of disease or the angel of death.The 1948 war also had many examples of Arabs, considered friendly neighbors of Jews for generations, "suddenly" turning on them and butchering them, or cheering on those who tried.

(full article online)

The Stockholm Syndrome of Hebron, 1929 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Arab and Muslim attacks against Jews, 1907-1915 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> I just came upon the American Jewish Yearbook for 1914-1915, describing events of the year. Here are some of the events in Palestine at the time:
> 
> January. At Hebron, Jewish storekeepers are boycotted by Mohammedan women.
> 
> April. Minister of Interior removes Governor of Tiberias on complaint of Chief Rabbi of his laxity in protecting the Jews against Arab attacks.
> 
> May. Minister of Interior orders officiais in Palestine to repress all anti-Jewish manifestations.—Chief Rabbi waits on Minister of Interior and reads to him two violent articles in Arab journal Palestine, and warns him that any disorders that might result therefrom would create bad impression abroad.There were constant attacks by Arabs against the tiny Jewish community even then, as well as incitement against Jews in the Arab media and economic boycotts.
> ---
> 
> Pointedly, these attacks and incitement were not against Zionists, but Jews. And the Jews didn't attack any Arabs.
> 
> These are the idyllic, peaceful days that the Arab world wants to return to, when the Jews were defenseless and the Arabs could attack them with impunity.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Jews and Arabs living peacefully together ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


I see it was printed in Lydd in 1988,but thanks..YAWN......now why don't you spend time in the real world and explain to the Posters about the Murderous behaviour of the Zionist Filth 1900 to 2018.............or does your sight only reach the end of your nose......Not good enough by half I'm afraid 60's........Get Real or Get Out


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> Were the Arabs of Hebron as tolerant of Jews before the massacre as the Jews there claimed? Or was this a psychological defense mechanism that the Jews employed to shut their eyes to the truth?
> 
> The truth may very well be the latter. A book written in 1905 called The Jews of Many Lands, by Elkan Nathan Adler, describes Hebron Arabs as being the most intolerant of all:
> 
> Hebron, or Khalil, the "City of Friendship," is perhaps the oldest city of the Holy Land, and in interest it vies with Jerusalem itself. Among us Jews it is reverently described as " the Burial Ground of our Fathers," and a pilgrimage thither is highly esteemed. The Mohammedans regard it with even more reverence as a sacred place than Jerusalem, for is it not the last resting-place of Abraham—el Khalil Allah—the friend of God and His great prophet? Their regard, although flattering to the founder of our race, carries with it the disadvantage that it makes the Hebronites the most fanatical of the followers of Islam, and the most intolerant.Christians cannot live at Hebron, and Jews there are treated as dogs. Curses both loud and deep greeted us as we walked round the Great Mosque, which encloses the Cave of Machpelah; but, as we did not understand the meaning of the imprecations or appreciate the delicacy or appropriateness of the choice epithets applied to us, and, as the missiles thrown at us were not well aimed, we could afford to treat our reception with amused nonchalance. Nowhere in the East did I meet with such bigotry as at Hebron, and it did not surprise me to learn that Dr. Stein, the medical man whom we sent out there some time ago, has no Mohammedans among his clientele, because the Hebronites, unlike the Mohammedans who live in Jerusalem and elsewhere are too utter fatalists to believe that medicine can arrest the progress of disease or the angel of death.The 1948 war also had many examples of Arabs, considered friendly neighbors of Jews for generations, "suddenly" turning on them and butchering them, or cheering on those who tried.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The Stockholm Syndrome of Hebron, 1929 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


Let's now Talk of the 100's of thousands of innocent Law Abiding Palestinians systematically SLAUGHTERED by the Zionist Terrorist...Idiot


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the Arabs of Hebron as tolerant of Jews before the massacre as the Jews there claimed? Or was this a psychological defense mechanism that the Jews employed to shut their eyes to the truth?
> 
> The truth may very well be the latter. A book written in 1905 called The Jews of Many Lands, by Elkan Nathan Adler, describes Hebron Arabs as being the most intolerant of all:
> 
> Hebron, or Khalil, the "City of Friendship," is perhaps the oldest city of the Holy Land, and in interest it vies with Jerusalem itself. Among us Jews it is reverently described as " the Burial Ground of our Fathers," and a pilgrimage thither is highly esteemed. The Mohammedans regard it with even more reverence as a sacred place than Jerusalem, for is it not the last resting-place of Abraham—el Khalil Allah—the friend of God and His great prophet? Their regard, although flattering to the founder of our race, carries with it the disadvantage that it makes the Hebronites the most fanatical of the followers of Islam, and the most intolerant.Christians cannot live at Hebron, and Jews there are treated as dogs. Curses both loud and deep greeted us as we walked round the Great Mosque, which encloses the Cave of Machpelah; but, as we did not understand the meaning of the imprecations or appreciate the delicacy or appropriateness of the choice epithets applied to us, and, as the missiles thrown at us were not well aimed, we could afford to treat our reception with amused nonchalance. Nowhere in the East did I meet with such bigotry as at Hebron, and it did not surprise me to learn that Dr. Stein, the medical man whom we sent out there some time ago, has no Mohammedans among his clientele, because the Hebronites, unlike the Mohammedans who live in Jerusalem and elsewhere are too utter fatalists to believe that medicine can arrest the progress of disease or the angel of death.The 1948 war also had many examples of Arabs, considered friendly neighbors of Jews for generations, "suddenly" turning on them and butchering them, or cheering on those who tried.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The Stockholm Syndrome of Hebron, 1929 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> Let's now Talk of the 100's of thousands of innocent Law Abiding Palestinians systematically SLAUGHTERED by the Zionist Terrorist...Idiot
Click to expand...

Where did you find all of those "100's of thousands" of Palestinians slaughtered by the Zionists from 1920 to 1948?

Give me a hint


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the Arabs of Hebron as tolerant of Jews before the massacre as the Jews there claimed? Or was this a psychological defense mechanism that the Jews employed to shut their eyes to the truth?
> 
> The truth may very well be the latter. A book written in 1905 called The Jews of Many Lands, by Elkan Nathan Adler, describes Hebron Arabs as being the most intolerant of all:
> 
> Hebron, or Khalil, the "City of Friendship," is perhaps the oldest city of the Holy Land, and in interest it vies with Jerusalem itself. Among us Jews it is reverently described as " the Burial Ground of our Fathers," and a pilgrimage thither is highly esteemed. The Mohammedans regard it with even more reverence as a sacred place than Jerusalem, for is it not the last resting-place of Abraham—el Khalil Allah—the friend of God and His great prophet? Their regard, although flattering to the founder of our race, carries with it the disadvantage that it makes the Hebronites the most fanatical of the followers of Islam, and the most intolerant.Christians cannot live at Hebron, and Jews there are treated as dogs. Curses both loud and deep greeted us as we walked round the Great Mosque, which encloses the Cave of Machpelah; but, as we did not understand the meaning of the imprecations or appreciate the delicacy or appropriateness of the choice epithets applied to us, and, as the missiles thrown at us were not well aimed, we could afford to treat our reception with amused nonchalance. Nowhere in the East did I meet with such bigotry as at Hebron, and it did not surprise me to learn that Dr. Stein, the medical man whom we sent out there some time ago, has no Mohammedans among his clientele, because the Hebronites, unlike the Mohammedans who live in Jerusalem and elsewhere are too utter fatalists to believe that medicine can arrest the progress of disease or the angel of death.The 1948 war also had many examples of Arabs, considered friendly neighbors of Jews for generations, "suddenly" turning on them and butchering them, or cheering on those who tried.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The Stockholm Syndrome of Hebron, 1929 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> Let's now Talk of the 100's of thousands of innocent Law Abiding Palestinians systematically SLAUGHTERED by the Zionist Terrorist...Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you find all of those "100's of thousands" of Palestinians slaughtered by the Zionists from 1920 to 1948?
> 
> Give me a hint
Click to expand...

You are pointless


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it was "greedy" for Palestinians to want to stay on the land that had been in the family for hundreds of years?
> 
> What dumbfuck wrote this shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really Fore,I do give you credit most of the time but when I see such prose like this,I sometimes wonder why...come on man,you can do better than this nonsence..st
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet what he said was factually correct.
> 
> Israel is just 1% of the middle east, Arabs and other Muslims control the other 99%.
> *Take the Tamimi family for example, they have a WHOLE COUNTRY of their own, called Qatar.*
> 
> Yet they can't stand seeing Jews having 1% of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Percentages don't matter when someone is claiming* your *land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is exactly what the Jews claim after centuries of being overwhelmed by Arabian invading tribes.
> We are minority in the world, but percentages DON"T MATTER when You claim Your ancestral lands.
> 
> You Americans are running from the fact that Your state left a tiny percent of Indians, exactly like Arabs did to Jews.
Click to expand...

*A Hideout for Nomadic Bandits Is Not a Homeland*

It's the opposite of your moral equivalence.  Both the Arabs and the American Indians are obsolete savages.


----------



## rylah

The Sage of Main Street said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs have over 99% of the Middle East, so yes--wanting that last 1% as well is greedy.  And many of the Arabs in Palestine were recent migrants to that area.  A document from the 1920's said that Palestine's population was constantly being replenished by nomads from the Arabian peninsula.
> 
> 
> 
> Really Fore,I do give you credit most of the time but when I see such prose like this,I sometimes wonder why...come on man,you can do better than this nonsence..st
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet what he said was factually correct.
> 
> Israel is just 1% of the middle east, Arabs and other Muslims control the other 99%.
> *Take the Tamimi family for example, they have a WHOLE COUNTRY of their own, called Qatar.*
> 
> Yet they can't stand seeing Jews having 1% of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Percentages don't matter when someone is claiming* your *land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is exactly what the Jews claim after centuries of being overwhelmed by Arabian invading tribes.
> We are minority in the world, but percentages DON"T MATTER when You claim Your ancestral lands.
> 
> You Americans are running from the fact that Your state left a tiny percent of Indians, exactly like Arabs did to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A Hideout for Nomadic Bandits Is Not a Homeland*
> 
> It's the opposite of your moral equivalence.  Both the Arabs and the American Indians are obsolete savages.
Click to expand...


I wan not making a moral comparison between the Native American and Jewish cultures.

The comparison was made to illustrate how  indigenous people can become a tiny minority in their homeland.


----------



## rylah

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1890
> The term "Zionism" is coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal _Self Emancipation_ and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel
> 
> Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia
> 
> [ Let us look at Judeophobia in the 19th century alone, before the term Zionism was coined, and before the first Zionist immigration occurred.
> Why did Arabs attack real Jews in that century anywhere in Arab conquered land? Or any other century before it?
> 
> Weren't the Jews expelled by the Inquisition in Europe Real Jews?
> Why would Europe expel them if they were not the real ones.
> Easier to just force them to convert back to Christianity, as many actually were.
> 
> DIdn't the Nazis consider all the Jews in Europe to be Real Jews, and that is why they ended up killing them, as Husseini, in the Region of Palestine, did not want any more real Jews to come to that region and reclaim their land, and recreate their nation with the Mandate for Palestine? ]
> 
> *Nineteenth century*
> The Damascus affair was an accusation of ritual murder and a blood libel against Jews in Damascus in 1840. On February 5, 1840, Franciscan Capuchin friar Father Thomas and his Greek servant were reported missing, never to be seen again. The Turkish governor and the French consul Ratti-Menton believed accusations of ritual murder and blood libel, as the alleged murder occurred before the Jewish Passover. An investigation was staged, and Solomon Negrin, a Jewish barber, confessed under torture and accused other Jews. Two other Jews died under torture, and one (Moses Abulafia) converted to Islam to escape torture. More arrests and atrocities followed, culminating in 63 Jewish children being held hostage and mob attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. International outrage led to Ibrahim Pasha in Egypt ordering an investigation. Negotiations in Alexandria eventually secured the unconditional release and recognition of innocence of the nine prisoners still remaining alive (out of thirteen). Later in Constantinople, Moses Montefiore (leader of the British Jewish community) persuaded Sultan Abdülmecid I to issue a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire:
> 
> ... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth....
> 
> Nevertheless, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jaffa (1876), Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), and Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891).[17]
> 
> The Dreyfus affair of the late nineteenth century had consequences in the Arab world. Passionate outbursts of antisemitism in France were echoed in areas of French influence, especially Maronite Lebanon. The Muslim Arab press, however, was sympathetic to the falsely accused Captain Dreyfus, and criticized the persecution of Jews in France.[18]
> 
> Antisemitism in the Arab world - Wikipedia
> 
> In other words, before Herzl and the need to recreate the Sovereign Jewish Nation on their ancient homeland, All Jews were REAL JEWS.
> 
> All the way up to 1948 or 1967, all the Jews in the world were still REAL JEWS.
> 
> Sometime  "after" 1967 all the Jews who had resided in Europe before they returned to their ancient homeland became "fictional, converted Jews, non indigenous to the Land of Israel"
> 
> Those Jews from Europe were suddenly converts from a Central Asian Turcic (Non European) land called Khazar where the monarchy had allegedly converted in the 9th or 10th century CE.
> 
> And somehow......they managed not only to end up having European looks (blonde, red hair, blue eyed, green eyed, light skin)
> but they also managed to multiply to about 6 or more Millions in number, while remained isolated from most other Christian groups in that continent.
> 
> 
> I say.......isn't that a most fantastic people, that they could have succeeded in such an amazing thing, not achieved by any other group in the world?
> 
> Khazars......I applaud you.  You are more brilliant than all Real Jews put together, from Abraham to David, to Solomon, to Maimonides.
> And all the Real Jews who still live on the land "amongst you".
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !!!
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of Defecation in one Post...Yah Nuts
Click to expand...


Please remember what You answered the next time You want to talk about poor Arabs who had to bear consequence of their own wars and Pogroms:

Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:

_"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
*On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_

Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1890
> The term "Zionism" is coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal _Self Emancipation_ and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel
> 
> Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia
> 
> [ Let us look at Judeophobia in the 19th century alone, before the term Zionism was coined, and before the first Zionist immigration occurred.
> Why did Arabs attack real Jews in that century anywhere in Arab conquered land? Or any other century before it?
> 
> Weren't the Jews expelled by the Inquisition in Europe Real Jews?
> Why would Europe expel them if they were not the real ones.
> Easier to just force them to convert back to Christianity, as many actually were.
> 
> DIdn't the Nazis consider all the Jews in Europe to be Real Jews, and that is why they ended up killing them, as Husseini, in the Region of Palestine, did not want any more real Jews to come to that region and reclaim their land, and recreate their nation with the Mandate for Palestine? ]
> 
> *Nineteenth century*
> The Damascus affair was an accusation of ritual murder and a blood libel against Jews in Damascus in 1840. On February 5, 1840, Franciscan Capuchin friar Father Thomas and his Greek servant were reported missing, never to be seen again. The Turkish governor and the French consul Ratti-Menton believed accusations of ritual murder and blood libel, as the alleged murder occurred before the Jewish Passover. An investigation was staged, and Solomon Negrin, a Jewish barber, confessed under torture and accused other Jews. Two other Jews died under torture, and one (Moses Abulafia) converted to Islam to escape torture. More arrests and atrocities followed, culminating in 63 Jewish children being held hostage and mob attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. International outrage led to Ibrahim Pasha in Egypt ordering an investigation. Negotiations in Alexandria eventually secured the unconditional release and recognition of innocence of the nine prisoners still remaining alive (out of thirteen). Later in Constantinople, Moses Montefiore (leader of the British Jewish community) persuaded Sultan Abdülmecid I to issue a firman (edict) intended to halt the spread of blood libel accusations in the Ottoman Empire:
> 
> ... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth....
> 
> Nevertheless, pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jaffa (1876), Jerusalem (1847, 1870 and 1895), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), and Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891).[17]
> 
> The Dreyfus affair of the late nineteenth century had consequences in the Arab world. Passionate outbursts of antisemitism in France were echoed in areas of French influence, especially Maronite Lebanon. The Muslim Arab press, however, was sympathetic to the falsely accused Captain Dreyfus, and criticized the persecution of Jews in France.[18]
> 
> Antisemitism in the Arab world - Wikipedia
> 
> In other words, before Herzl and the need to recreate the Sovereign Jewish Nation on their ancient homeland, All Jews were REAL JEWS.
> 
> All the way up to 1948 or 1967, all the Jews in the world were still REAL JEWS.
> 
> Sometime  "after" 1967 all the Jews who had resided in Europe before they returned to their ancient homeland became "fictional, converted Jews, non indigenous to the Land of Israel"
> 
> Those Jews from Europe were suddenly converts from a Central Asian Turcic (Non European) land called Khazar where the monarchy had allegedly converted in the 9th or 10th century CE.
> 
> And somehow......they managed not only to end up having European looks (blonde, red hair, blue eyed, green eyed, light skin)
> but they also managed to multiply to about 6 or more Millions in number, while remained isolated from most other Christian groups in that continent.
> 
> 
> I say.......isn't that a most fantastic people, that they could have succeeded in such an amazing thing, not achieved by any other group in the world?
> 
> Khazars......I applaud you.  You are more brilliant than all Real Jews put together, from Abraham to David, to Solomon, to Maimonides.
> And all the Real Jews who still live on the land "amongst you".
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai !!!
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of Defecation in one Post...Yah Nuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please remember what You answered the next time You want to talk about poor Arabs who had to bear consequence of their own wars and Pogroms:
> 
> Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews..._
> _*On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...*_
> _*The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
Click to expand...

??????


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

rylah said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really Fore,I do give you credit most of the time but when I see such prose like this,I sometimes wonder why...come on man,you can do better than this nonsence..st
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet what he said was factually correct.
> 
> Israel is just 1% of the middle east, Arabs and other Muslims control the other 99%.
> *Take the Tamimi family for example, they have a WHOLE COUNTRY of their own, called Qatar.*
> 
> Yet they can't stand seeing Jews having 1% of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Percentages don't matter when someone is claiming* your *land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is exactly what the Jews claim after centuries of being overwhelmed by Arabian invading tribes.
> We are minority in the world, but percentages DON"T MATTER when You claim Your ancestral lands.
> 
> You Americans are running from the fact that Your state left a tiny percent of Indians, exactly like Arabs did to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A Hideout for Nomadic Bandits Is Not a Homeland*
> 
> It's the opposite of your moral equivalence.  Both the Arabs and the American Indians are obsolete savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wan not making a moral comparison between the Native American and Jewish cultures.
> 
> The comparison was made to illustrate how  indigenous people can become a tiny minority in their homeland.
Click to expand...

*Regressive Progressives*

So you believe in seniority rights?  The natural law should be "Use it or lose it"; that is, the land belongs to those capable of developing it the most.  All rights have to be earned; wandering savages are incapable of earning territorial rights.  Those who give them equal rights are a manifestation of Postmodern civilization's Death Wish.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Sage of Main Street said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet what he said was factually correct.
> 
> Israel is just 1% of the middle east, Arabs and other Muslims control the other 99%.
> *Take the Tamimi family for example, they have a WHOLE COUNTRY of their own, called Qatar.*
> 
> Yet they can't stand seeing Jews having 1% of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> Percentages don't matter when someone is claiming* your *land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is exactly what the Jews claim after centuries of being overwhelmed by Arabian invading tribes.
> We are minority in the world, but percentages DON"T MATTER when You claim Your ancestral lands.
> 
> You Americans are running from the fact that Your state left a tiny percent of Indians, exactly like Arabs did to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A Hideout for Nomadic Bandits Is Not a Homeland*
> 
> It's the opposite of your moral equivalence.  Both the Arabs and the American Indians are obsolete savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wan not making a moral comparison between the Native American and Jewish cultures.
> 
> The comparison was made to illustrate how  indigenous people can become a tiny minority in their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Regressive Progressives*
> 
> So you believe in seniority rights?  The natural law should be "Use it or lose it"; that is, the land belongs to those capable of developing it the most.  All rights have to be earned; wandering savages are incapable of earning territorial rights.  Those who give them equal rights are a manifestation of Postmodern civilization's Death Wish.
Click to expand...

Israeli bullshit, of course.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Percentages don't matter when someone is claiming* your *land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is exactly what the Jews claim after centuries of being overwhelmed by Arabian invading tribes.
> We are minority in the world, but percentages DON"T MATTER when You claim Your ancestral lands.
> 
> You Americans are running from the fact that Your state left a tiny percent of Indians, exactly like Arabs did to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A Hideout for Nomadic Bandits Is Not a Homeland*
> 
> It's the opposite of your moral equivalence.  Both the Arabs and the American Indians are obsolete savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wan not making a moral comparison between the Native American and Jewish cultures.
> 
> The comparison was made to illustrate how  indigenous people can become a tiny minority in their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Regressive Progressives*
> 
> So you believe in seniority rights?  The natural law should be "Use it or lose it"; that is, the land belongs to those capable of developing it the most.  All rights have to be earned; wandering savages are incapable of earning territorial rights.  Those who give them equal rights are a manifestation of Postmodern civilization's Death Wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
Click to expand...


*Arabization*

*Arabization* or *Arabisation* (Arabic: تعريب‎ _taʻrīb_) describes either the conquest and/or colonization of a non-Arab area and growing Arab influence on non-Arab populations.


How dared Jews resist all those peaceful Pogroms by their Arab neighbors, right?


----------



## theliq

The Sage of Main Street said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet what he said was factually correct.
> 
> Israel is just 1% of the middle east, Arabs and other Muslims control the other 99%.
> *Take the Tamimi family for example, they have a WHOLE COUNTRY of their own, called Qatar.*
> 
> Yet they can't stand seeing Jews having 1% of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> Percentages don't matter when someone is claiming* your *land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is exactly what the Jews claim after centuries of being overwhelmed by Arabian invading tribes.
> We are minority in the world, but percentages DON"T MATTER when You claim Your ancestral lands.
> 
> You Americans are running from the fact that Your state left a tiny percent of Indians, exactly like Arabs did to Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A Hideout for Nomadic Bandits Is Not a Homeland*
> 
> It's the opposite of your moral equivalence.  Both the Arabs and the American Indians are obsolete savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wan not making a moral comparison between the Native American and Jewish cultures.
> 
> The comparison was made to illustrate how  indigenous people can become a tiny minority in their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Regressive Progressives*
> 
> So you believe in seniority rights?  The natural law should be "Use it or lose it"; that is, the land belongs to those capable of developing it the most.  All rights have to be earned; wandering savages are incapable of earning territorial rights.  Those who give them equal rights are a manifestation of Postmodern civilization's Death Wish.
Click to expand...

Palestine has always been productive...even to the extent that the President of France in the 1880's whilst France was in a Famine,THANKED THE PALESTINIANS FOR SENDING WHEAT AND OTHER CROPS AND FOOD TO FRANCE PREVENTING STARVATION.....you blithering IDIOT...all you spew is rubbish....by the way,without the American Tax Payers Money(AID) they would NEVER be in the position they are today...you Idiot


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> THANK YOU!
> 
> This is exactly what the Jews claim after centuries of being overwhelmed by Arabian invading tribes.
> We are minority in the world, but percentages DON"T MATTER when You claim Your ancestral lands.
> 
> You Americans are running from the fact that Your state left a tiny percent of Indians, exactly like Arabs did to Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> *A Hideout for Nomadic Bandits Is Not a Homeland*
> 
> It's the opposite of your moral equivalence.  Both the Arabs and the American Indians are obsolete savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wan not making a moral comparison between the Native American and Jewish cultures.
> 
> The comparison was made to illustrate how  indigenous people can become a tiny minority in their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Regressive Progressives*
> 
> So you believe in seniority rights?  The natural law should be "Use it or lose it"; that is, the land belongs to those capable of developing it the most.  All rights have to be earned; wandering savages are incapable of earning territorial rights.  Those who give them equal rights are a manifestation of Postmodern civilization's Death Wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Arabization*
> 
> *Arabization* or *Arabisation* (Arabic: تعريب‎ _taʻrīb_) describes either the conquest and/or colonization of a non-Arab area and growing Arab influence on non-Arab populations.
> 
> 
> How dared Jews resist all those peaceful Pogroms by their Arab neighbors, right?
Click to expand...

and on the other hand WE HAVE TERRORIST ZIONISM...the original ISIS TYPE ORGANIZATION,,,WHO SOLD THE LAND AND SLAUGHTERED THE PALESTINIANS


----------



## rylah

theliq said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Hideout for Nomadic Bandits Is Not a Homeland*
> 
> It's the opposite of your moral equivalence.  Both the Arabs and the American Indians are obsolete savages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wan not making a moral comparison between the Native American and Jewish cultures.
> 
> The comparison was made to illustrate how  indigenous people can become a tiny minority in their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Regressive Progressives*
> 
> So you believe in seniority rights?  The natural law should be "Use it or lose it"; that is, the land belongs to those capable of developing it the most.  All rights have to be earned; wandering savages are incapable of earning territorial rights.  Those who give them equal rights are a manifestation of Postmodern civilization's Death Wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Arabization*
> 
> *Arabization* or *Arabisation* (Arabic: تعريب‎ _taʻrīb_) describes either the conquest and/or colonization of a non-Arab area and growing Arab influence on non-Arab populations.
> 
> 
> How dared Jews resist all those peaceful Pogroms by their Arab neighbors, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and on the other hand WE HAVE TERRORIST ZIONISM...the original ISIS TYPE ORGANIZATION,,,WHO SOLD THE LAND AND SLAUGHTERED THE PALESTINIANS
Click to expand...

\
After Arabs assisted British invasion, they themselves declared in 1919 that they were ceding the land to a King from Mecca.

Q. So how many Arab Pogroms were there before a Zionist ever shot a bullet?


----------



## Sixties Fan

“Do you know I have an Israeli ID?” the jeweler inside Damascus Gate asks, while he folds up his prayer rug and begins brewing sage tea.

“No. How’d you manage that?” I ask.

“I’m from Hebron,” he says and the room is quiet and he looks at me with hooded eyes. “Muslims from Hebron don’t have Israeli ID cards.”

I watch him put sugar in his tea and stir.

“My father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron,” he continues and rubs his eyes. “Do you know what happened in Hebron in 1929?”

“Yes, there was a massacre, and many Jews were murdered,” I reply.

“It was a genocide,” he corrects me.

I would call it a pogrom — a hideous massacre that left nearly 70 people murdered, including women and children — some younger than 5-years-old. But the Palestinian jeweler in the Old City calls it a genocide, and I wait for him to continue.

“My grandfather, and his father saved 24 families during the genocide,” the jeweler tells me. “And afterwards, the Israelis offered us land — and we said, ‘No, we have land, we have our olive trees,’ and then they offered us money and we said, ‘No, we have money, and it is enough,’ so they gave us ID cards and travel documents to thank us, instead.”

“Wow.”

He takes out his blue ID card, same as mine.

“There were many in Hebron who did this — many families saved Jews, and there are also many in Hebron who hate what we did and they call us collaborators. Fuck you, I tell them. We saved children. We saved families. These were our friends and our neighbors. We had meals together!”

(full article online)

Why the Palestinian jeweler from Hebron has an Israeli ID card


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> “Do you know I have an Israeli ID?” the jeweler inside Damascus Gate asks, while he folds up his prayer rug and begins brewing sage tea.
> 
> “No. How’d you manage that?” I ask.
> 
> “I’m from Hebron,” he says and the room is quiet and he looks at me with hooded eyes. “Muslims from Hebron don’t have Israeli ID cards.”
> 
> I watch him put sugar in his tea and stir.
> 
> “My father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron,” he continues and rubs his eyes. “Do you know what happened in Hebron in 1929?”
> 
> “Yes, there was a massacre, and many Jews were murdered,” I reply.
> 
> “It was a genocide,” he corrects me.
> 
> I would call it a pogrom — a hideous massacre that left nearly 70 people murdered, including women and children — some younger than 5-years-old. But the Palestinian jeweler in the Old City calls it a genocide, and I wait for him to continue.
> 
> “My grandfather, and his father saved 24 families during the genocide,” the jeweler tells me. “And afterwards, the Israelis offered us land — and we said, ‘No, we have land, we have our olive trees,’ and then they offered us money and we said, ‘No, we have money, and it is enough,’ so they gave us ID cards and travel documents to thank us, instead.”
> 
> “Wow.”
> 
> He takes out his blue ID card, same as mine.
> 
> “There were many in Hebron who did this — many families saved Jews, and there are also many in Hebron who hate what we did and they call us collaborators. Fuck you, I tell them. We saved children. We saved families. These were our friends and our neighbors. We had meals together!”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Why the Palestinian jeweler from Hebron has an Israeli ID card


Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Do you know I have an Israeli ID?” the jeweler inside Damascus Gate asks, while he folds up his prayer rug and begins brewing sage tea.
> 
> “No. How’d you manage that?” I ask.
> 
> “I’m from Hebron,” he says and the room is quiet and he looks at me with hooded eyes. “Muslims from Hebron don’t have Israeli ID cards.”
> 
> I watch him put sugar in his tea and stir.
> 
> “My father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron,” he continues and rubs his eyes. “Do you know what happened in Hebron in 1929?”
> 
> “Yes, there was a massacre, and many Jews were murdered,” I reply.
> 
> “It was a genocide,” he corrects me.
> 
> I would call it a pogrom — a hideous massacre that left nearly 70 people murdered, including women and children — some younger than 5-years-old. But the Palestinian jeweler in the Old City calls it a genocide, and I wait for him to continue.
> 
> “My grandfather, and his father saved 24 families during the genocide,” the jeweler tells me. “And afterwards, the Israelis offered us land — and we said, ‘No, we have land, we have our olive trees,’ and then they offered us money and we said, ‘No, we have money, and it is enough,’ so they gave us ID cards and travel documents to thank us, instead.”
> 
> “Wow.”
> 
> He takes out his blue ID card, same as mine.
> 
> “There were many in Hebron who did this — many families saved Jews, and there are also many in Hebron who hate what we did and they call us collaborators. Fuck you, I tell them. We saved children. We saved families. These were our friends and our neighbors. We had meals together!”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Why the Palestinian jeweler from Hebron has an Israeli ID card
> 
> 
> 
> Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way
Click to expand...

You need to cure your dementia.  

Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.

FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?

Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!


Am Israel Chai  !!
The People of Israel Live!!

And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Do you know I have an Israeli ID?” the jeweler inside Damascus Gate asks, while he folds up his prayer rug and begins brewing sage tea.
> 
> “No. How’d you manage that?” I ask.
> 
> “I’m from Hebron,” he says and the room is quiet and he looks at me with hooded eyes. “Muslims from Hebron don’t have Israeli ID cards.”
> 
> I watch him put sugar in his tea and stir.
> 
> “My father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron,” he continues and rubs his eyes. “Do you know what happened in Hebron in 1929?”
> 
> “Yes, there was a massacre, and many Jews were murdered,” I reply.
> 
> “It was a genocide,” he corrects me.
> 
> I would call it a pogrom — a hideous massacre that left nearly 70 people murdered, including women and children — some younger than 5-years-old. But the Palestinian jeweler in the Old City calls it a genocide, and I wait for him to continue.
> 
> “My grandfather, and his father saved 24 families during the genocide,” the jeweler tells me. “And afterwards, the Israelis offered us land — and we said, ‘No, we have land, we have our olive trees,’ and then they offered us money and we said, ‘No, we have money, and it is enough,’ so they gave us ID cards and travel documents to thank us, instead.”
> 
> “Wow.”
> 
> He takes out his blue ID card, same as mine.
> 
> “There were many in Hebron who did this — many families saved Jews, and there are also many in Hebron who hate what we did and they call us collaborators. Fuck you, I tell them. We saved children. We saved families. These were our friends and our neighbors. We had meals together!”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Why the Palestinian jeweler from Hebron has an Israeli ID card
> 
> 
> 
> Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
Click to expand...

Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Do you know I have an Israeli ID?” the jeweler inside Damascus Gate asks, while he folds up his prayer rug and begins brewing sage tea.
> 
> “No. How’d you manage that?” I ask.
> 
> “I’m from Hebron,” he says and the room is quiet and he looks at me with hooded eyes. “Muslims from Hebron don’t have Israeli ID cards.”
> 
> I watch him put sugar in his tea and stir.
> 
> “My father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron,” he continues and rubs his eyes. “Do you know what happened in Hebron in 1929?”
> 
> “Yes, there was a massacre, and many Jews were murdered,” I reply.
> 
> “It was a genocide,” he corrects me.
> 
> I would call it a pogrom — a hideous massacre that left nearly 70 people murdered, including women and children — some younger than 5-years-old. But the Palestinian jeweler in the Old City calls it a genocide, and I wait for him to continue.
> 
> “My grandfather, and his father saved 24 families during the genocide,” the jeweler tells me. “And afterwards, the Israelis offered us land — and we said, ‘No, we have land, we have our olive trees,’ and then they offered us money and we said, ‘No, we have money, and it is enough,’ so they gave us ID cards and travel documents to thank us, instead.”
> 
> “Wow.”
> 
> He takes out his blue ID card, same as mine.
> 
> “There were many in Hebron who did this — many families saved Jews, and there are also many in Hebron who hate what we did and they call us collaborators. Fuck you, I tell them. We saved children. We saved families. These were our friends and our neighbors. We had meals together!”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Why the Palestinian jeweler from Hebron has an Israeli ID card
> 
> 
> 
> Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
Click to expand...

[The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.

Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
--------------------
A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.

The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.

Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others

[Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]

Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
----
No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
  Their crime?  They are Jewish.

Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.

Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.

They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.

Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam 
has told them to.

Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.

Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Do you know I have an Israeli ID?” the jeweler inside Damascus Gate asks, while he folds up his prayer rug and begins brewing sage tea.
> 
> “No. How’d you manage that?” I ask.
> 
> “I’m from Hebron,” he says and the room is quiet and he looks at me with hooded eyes. “Muslims from Hebron don’t have Israeli ID cards.”
> 
> I watch him put sugar in his tea and stir.
> 
> “My father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron,” he continues and rubs his eyes. “Do you know what happened in Hebron in 1929?”
> 
> “Yes, there was a massacre, and many Jews were murdered,” I reply.
> 
> “It was a genocide,” he corrects me.
> 
> I would call it a pogrom — a hideous massacre that left nearly 70 people murdered, including women and children — some younger than 5-years-old. But the Palestinian jeweler in the Old City calls it a genocide, and I wait for him to continue.
> 
> “My grandfather, and his father saved 24 families during the genocide,” the jeweler tells me. “And afterwards, the Israelis offered us land — and we said, ‘No, we have land, we have our olive trees,’ and then they offered us money and we said, ‘No, we have money, and it is enough,’ so they gave us ID cards and travel documents to thank us, instead.”
> 
> “Wow.”
> 
> He takes out his blue ID card, same as mine.
> 
> “There were many in Hebron who did this — many families saved Jews, and there are also many in Hebron who hate what we did and they call us collaborators. Fuck you, I tell them. We saved children. We saved families. These were our friends and our neighbors. We had meals together!”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Why the Palestinian jeweler from Hebron has an Israeli ID card
> 
> 
> 
> Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
Click to expand...

He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Do you know I have an Israeli ID?” the jeweler inside Damascus Gate asks, while he folds up his prayer rug and begins brewing sage tea.
> 
> “No. How’d you manage that?” I ask.
> 
> “I’m from Hebron,” he says and the room is quiet and he looks at me with hooded eyes. “Muslims from Hebron don’t have Israeli ID cards.”
> 
> I watch him put sugar in his tea and stir.
> 
> “My father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron,” he continues and rubs his eyes. “Do you know what happened in Hebron in 1929?”
> 
> “Yes, there was a massacre, and many Jews were murdered,” I reply.
> 
> “It was a genocide,” he corrects me.
> 
> I would call it a pogrom — a hideous massacre that left nearly 70 people murdered, including women and children — some younger than 5-years-old. But the Palestinian jeweler in the Old City calls it a genocide, and I wait for him to continue.
> 
> “My grandfather, and his father saved 24 families during the genocide,” the jeweler tells me. “And afterwards, the Israelis offered us land — and we said, ‘No, we have land, we have our olive trees,’ and then they offered us money and we said, ‘No, we have money, and it is enough,’ so they gave us ID cards and travel documents to thank us, instead.”
> 
> “Wow.”
> 
> He takes out his blue ID card, same as mine.
> 
> “There were many in Hebron who did this — many families saved Jews, and there are also many in Hebron who hate what we did and they call us collaborators. Fuck you, I tell them. We saved children. We saved families. These were our friends and our neighbors. We had meals together!”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Why the Palestinian jeweler from Hebron has an Israeli ID card
> 
> 
> 
> Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
Click to expand...

Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.

Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .  

So.... when is your new thread coming up ?


----------



## admonit

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Do you know I have an Israeli ID?” the jeweler inside Damascus Gate asks, while he folds up his prayer rug and begins brewing sage tea.
> 
> “No. How’d you manage that?” I ask.
> 
> “I’m from Hebron,” he says and the room is quiet and he looks at me with hooded eyes. “Muslims from Hebron don’t have Israeli ID cards.”
> 
> I watch him put sugar in his tea and stir.
> 
> “My father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron and his father is from Hebron,” he continues and rubs his eyes. “Do you know what happened in Hebron in 1929?”
> 
> “Yes, there was a massacre, and many Jews were murdered,” I reply.
> 
> “It was a genocide,” he corrects me.
> 
> I would call it a pogrom — a hideous massacre that left nearly 70 people murdered, including women and children — some younger than 5-years-old. But the Palestinian jeweler in the Old City calls it a genocide, and I wait for him to continue.
> 
> “My grandfather, and his father saved 24 families during the genocide,” the jeweler tells me. “And afterwards, the Israelis offered us land — and we said, ‘No, we have land, we have our olive trees,’ and then they offered us money and we said, ‘No, we have money, and it is enough,’ so they gave us ID cards and travel documents to thank us, instead.”
> 
> “Wow.”
> 
> He takes out his blue ID card, same as mine.
> 
> “There were many in Hebron who did this — many families saved Jews, and there are also many in Hebron who hate what we did and they call us collaborators. Fuck you, I tell them. We saved children. We saved families. These were our friends and our neighbors. We had meals together!”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Why the Palestinian jeweler from Hebron has an Israeli ID card
> 
> 
> 
> Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
Click to expand...

Netanyahu visited Belgium last December.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
Click to expand...


Israeliwood>>>>>IT is in the process of becoming, FULL OF SYNTHETIC CONVERT ZIONISTS TERRORISTS as the Zionist eventually kill off all REAL JEWS...Therefore it will be a Cult of People PRETENDING TO BE THE VERY PEOPLE THEY WILL KILL OFF...AND IN THAT THE IRONY OF THE JEWS,WHO SURVIVED EVERYTHING BUT IN THE END THEIR OWN TROJAN HORSE............


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go Now because you FORGOT TO MENTION,VERY CONVIENENTLY THE 100,000's of Palestinians including BABIES AND INFANTS SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORIST ZIONISTS,your prose is inane considering the NAZI-TERRORIST ZIONISTS ACTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,Most of Israel's Prime Ministers and Others should have been brought to The Hague and been EXECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES at the time..........FACT   and it's JeweLLer by the way
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
Click to expand...

U PITIFULL SYNTHETIC TROJAN HORSE


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeliwood>>>>>IT is in the process of becoming, FULL OF SYNTHETIC CONVERT ZIONISTS TERRORISTS as the Zionist eventually kill off all REAL JEWS...Therefore it will be a Cult of People PRETENDING TO BE THE VERY PEOPLE THEY WILL KILL OFF...AND IN THAT THE IRONY OF THE JEWS,WHO SURVIVED EVERYTHING BUT IN THE END THEIR OWN TROJAN HORSE............
Click to expand...

EXTRA !!!!    EXTRA !!!!!!

Arabs are really the Jews, and those who call themselves the Jews.......  Darn.....I have no idea where they came from.......Mercury?  Pluto?  Mars ?

Or.... are the Jews the real Arabs, and the Arabs the real Jews?
Must all Arabs move to ancient Canaan and all Jews move to Arabia to put a stop to the conflict?

Oh, what tangled webs we weave........


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cure your dementia.
> 
> Your "100,000 dead Palestinians" belongs in its own thread.
> Go ahead and start it on this forum or another one.
> But do make sure that you have all the documents, evidence to prove what you are saying, and saying and saying.....because so far it is nothing but your imitation of what other Jew haters have invented against Israel and Jews in general.
> 
> FIle a complaint with the Hague.  Why don't you?  Don't you have the time?
> 
> Your hatred is showing  BIG TIME  !!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!
> The People of Israel Live!!
> 
> And will continue to live regardless of Jew Haters like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> U PITIFULL SYNTHETIC TROJAN HORSE
Click to expand...

In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.

Let us not try to guess why.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> 
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> U PITIFULL SYNTHETIC TROJAN HORSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.
> 
> Let us not try to guess why.
Click to expand...

You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL


----------



## theliq

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> U PITIFULL SYNTHETIC TROJAN HORSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.
> 
> Let us not try to guess why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL
Click to expand...

I thought so Rylah too


----------



## rylah

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> U PITIFULL SYNTHETIC TROJAN HORSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.
> 
> Let us not try to guess why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL
Click to expand...


You just described 99% of Your posts here.


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians Live...Synthetic's are eliminating Real Jews,slowly but surely...SAY NO TO CRIMINAL ZIONISTS,as for the Hague,send Nit And Yar Hoo?????to Belgium or Spain...They have ARREST WARRANTS READY TO SERVE HIM..........They will gladly BUS him there to Den Haage in SHACKLES,so I don't need to.......Why does he not go to these two Countries....Big Mouth...I know and so do you.
> 
> 
> 
> [The PM has been to the Hague.  They did not arrest him.]
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Wednesday afternoon with Dutch journalists during his visit to the Dutch parliament in The Hague.
> 
> Netanyahu in Dutch parliament: Settlements aren't the problem
> --------------------
> A UN report found Israel’s blockade to be legal.
> 
> The three judges from the National Court voided the ruling, which makes it unenforceable by the police. The ruling is viewed as a victory for anti-BDS groups in Spain.
> 
> Spanish court: Arrest warrants not enforceable for Netanyahu, Liberman, others
> 
> [Radical Judges or any other Jew hater can request warrants all they want against Israeli officials.  They would never reach the Hague, and instead they only show how anti Jews they really are.]
> 
> Vile Belgium, weak on terror, strong on arresting Israelis
> ----
> No real warrants and no need for any real arrests of people who have not committed any war crimes.
> Their crime?  They are Jewish.
> 
> Dreyfuss was Jewish.  And he was accused and arrested and imprisoned.
> 
> Which is what started the whole need for the Jewish people to return to their homeland and recreate a sovereign nation on their ancient land.
> 
> They worked hard, and legally recreated their sovereign nation.
> 
> Arabs can cry all they want.  They stole it, lost it, lost it, and then lost it again.  Invaders from Arabia do not get to cry because Islam
> has told them to.
> 
> Arab Muslims or Christians have no claim to any part of ancient Canaan.
> 
> Negotiations are the only things which will lead to Peace Treaty like the ones with Egypt and Jordan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeliwood>>>>>IT is in the process of becoming, FULL OF SYNTHETIC CONVERT ZIONISTS TERRORISTS as the Zionist eventually kill off all REAL JEWS...Therefore it will be a Cult of People PRETENDING TO BE THE VERY PEOPLE THEY WILL KILL OFF...AND IN THAT THE IRONY OF THE JEWS,WHO SURVIVED EVERYTHING BUT IN THE END THEIR OWN TROJAN HORSE............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EXTRA !!!!    EXTRA !!!!!!
> 
> Arabs are really the Jews, and those who call themselves the Jews.......  Darn.....I have no idea where they came from.......Mercury?  Pluto?  Mars ?
> 
> Or.... are the Jews the real Arabs, and the Arabs the real Jews?
> Must all Arabs move to ancient Canaan and all Jews move to Arabia to put a stop to the conflict?
> 
> Oh, what tangled webs we weave........
Click to expand...

They came from the Ass End of the World,the FAUX JEWS AKA ZIONISTS, THAT IS


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has NOT been to Belgium or Spain as I said,so you can tip all your Zionista Red Herrings over your head...I deal in the Truth...You by comparison deal in LIES
> 
> 
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> U PITIFULL SYNTHETIC TROJAN HORSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.
> 
> Let us not try to guess why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described 99% of Your posts here.
Click to expand...

Really,so that's better than 100% as in 60's Diatribes...So Thanks for your compliment Rylah,I cannot help that your possee continue to Defend the Indefensible


----------



## rylah

theliq said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a Room (Thread) , Stevie boy.  Try to stop changing the topic in all the threads......if you can.....but apparently you cannot.
> 
> Your sick dreams of destroying Israel are never going to come true.  Live with it    Many Arab and other countries are starting to live with it.  So can you.  And if you cannot, that is your problem and no one else's .
> 
> So.... when is your new thread coming up ?
> 
> 
> 
> U PITIFULL SYNTHETIC TROJAN HORSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.
> 
> Let us not try to guess why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described 99% of Your posts here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really,so that's better than 100% as in 60's Diatribes...So Thanks for your compliment Rylah
Click to expand...

I don't get why all this chest beating
when You just ran away from an argument.






take the challenge for once.


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> U PITIFULL SYNTHETIC TROJAN HORSE
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.
> 
> Let us not try to guess why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described 99% of Your posts here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really,so that's better than 100% as in 60's Diatribes...So Thanks for your compliment Rylah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why all this chest beating
> when You just ran away from an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> take the challenge for once.
Click to expand...

What you lot cannot accept is MY TROJAN HORSE Comment...Live with it...Sinners...As you know R...I never take a backwards step...You and 60's have declared WAR...That is a  threat but also  the future of this THREAD,let it begin...and as an interest WHY DID YOU POSE YOURSELF IN YOUR PIC<>LOL.......ps Challenge ON,go raise you SYNTHETIC ARMY,I've drawn a line in the Sand at Mullaloo Beach


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.
> 
> Let us not try to guess why.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described 99% of Your posts here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really,so that's better than 100% as in 60's Diatribes...So Thanks for your compliment Rylah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why all this chest beating
> when You just ran away from an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> take the challenge for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you lot cannot accept is MY TROJAN HORSE Comment...Live with it...Sinners...As you know R...I never take a backwards step...You and 60's have declared WAR...That is a  threat but also  the future of this THREAD,let it begin...and as an interest WHY DID YOU POSE YOURSELF IN YOUR PIC<>LOL.......ps Challenge ON,go raise you SYNTHETIC ARMY,I've drawn a line in the Sand at Mullaloo Beach
Click to expand...

In computing, a *Trojan horse*, or *Trojan*, is any malicious computer programwhich misleads users of its true intent. The term is derived from the Ancient Greek story of the deceptive wooden horse that led to the fall of the city of Troy

We declared war???  On you???   How melodramatic.....

Sinners????  How very Extreme Christian of you to call us that, and everything else you have been spitting at us in a very ill mannered way.  Jesus is really proud, although still recovering from the shock that you have declared war on his people.

Never take a step back???  That is your main problem.  It might help to see the forrest if you were not so suck in looking from above only at the trees.  Can't see below.....how will you know where to lend?  Where the food is?  Know what I mean?

I am really sorry for Mullaloo Beach.....but .....at least your are that far away.    that your computer missiles cannot harm anyone from there.

The military which Israel has is not synthetic and it already exists.  It does not need to be raised.

All of which shows how totally out of touch with things you seem to be.

Do you have anymore out of your "Christian revenge mode on Jews" you seem to live and breath out of on a daily basis?

Do you really think you are going to be insulting us with all of that nonsense any decent Christian would simply walk away from, and not want to hear anything else which might come out of you?

Step back, make the effort.  See what happens.


----------



## rylah

theliq said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you make the claim but cannot start a thread for it.
> 
> Let us not try to guess why.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described 99% of Your posts here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really,so that's better than 100% as in 60's Diatribes...So Thanks for your compliment Rylah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why all this chest beating
> when You just ran away from an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> take the challenge for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you lot cannot accept is MY TROJAN HORSE Comment...Live with it...Sinners...As you know R...I never take a backwards step...You and 60's have declared WAR...That is a  threat but also  the future of this THREAD,let it begin...and as an interest WHY DID YOU POSE YOURSELF IN YOUR PIC<>LOL.......ps Challenge ON,go raise you SYNTHETIC ARMY,I've drawn a line in the Sand at Mullaloo Beach
Click to expand...


Ya zalame itla filmac 
Wuallaq kulhum yearfin earab hum abna alkhadimat.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have the BASICS OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND ABUSE,so why bother LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just described 99% of Your posts here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really,so that's better than 100% as in 60's Diatribes...So Thanks for your compliment Rylah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why all this chest beating
> when You just ran away from an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> take the challenge for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you lot cannot accept is MY TROJAN HORSE Comment...Live with it...Sinners...As you know R...I never take a backwards step...You and 60's have declared WAR...That is a  threat but also  the future of this THREAD,let it begin...and as an interest WHY DID YOU POSE YOURSELF IN YOUR PIC<>LOL.......ps Challenge ON,go raise you SYNTHETIC ARMY,I've drawn a line in the Sand at Mullaloo Beach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In computing, a *Trojan horse*, or *Trojan*, is any malicious computer programwhich misleads users of its true intent. The term is derived from the Ancient Greek story of the deceptive wooden horse that led to the fall of the city of Troy
> 
> We declared war???  On you???   How melodramatic.....
> 
> Sinners????  How very Extreme Christian of you to call us that, and everything else you have been spitting at us in a very ill mannered way.  Jesus is really proud, although still recovering from the shock that you have declared war on his people.
> 
> Never take a step back???  That is your main problem.  It might help to see the forrest if you were not so suck in looking from above only at the trees.  Can't see below.....how will you know where to lend?  Where the food is?  Know what I mean?
> 
> I am really sorry for Mullaloo Beach.....but .....at least your are that far away.    that your computer missiles cannot harm anyone from there.
> 
> The military which Israel has is not synthetic and it already exists.  It does not need to be raised.
> 
> All of which shows how totally out of touch with things you seem to be.
> 
> Do you have anymore out of your "Christian revenge mode on Jews" you seem to live and breath out of on a daily basis?
> 
> Do you really think you are going to be insulting us with all of that nonsense any decent Christian would simply walk away from, and not want to hear anything else which might come out of you?
> 
> Step back, make the effort.  See what happens.
Click to expand...

Well 60's you are back with us,I enjoyed your diatribe as usual....you are now mentally Scared by my Trojan Horse comment...You will kill off real Jews eventually and we will be left in their place TRUE SYNTHETIC ZIONISTS,Who have NO CLAIM TO THIS LAND.....SINNERS WHERE YOU GONNA RUN TO,WHERE YOU GONNA HIDE.YOU BOASTING PLASTIC PHARISEE YOU'LL NEVER CONQUER ME.


----------



## Sixties Fan

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just described 99% of Your posts here.
> 
> 
> 
> Really,so that's better than 100% as in 60's Diatribes...So Thanks for your compliment Rylah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get why all this chest beating
> when You just ran away from an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> take the challenge for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you lot cannot accept is MY TROJAN HORSE Comment...Live with it...Sinners...As you know R...I never take a backwards step...You and 60's have declared WAR...That is a  threat but also  the future of this THREAD,let it begin...and as an interest WHY DID YOU POSE YOURSELF IN YOUR PIC<>LOL.......ps Challenge ON,go raise you SYNTHETIC ARMY,I've drawn a line in the Sand at Mullaloo Beach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In computing, a *Trojan horse*, or *Trojan*, is any malicious computer programwhich misleads users of its true intent. The term is derived from the Ancient Greek story of the deceptive wooden horse that led to the fall of the city of Troy
> 
> We declared war???  On you???   How melodramatic.....
> 
> Sinners????  How very Extreme Christian of you to call us that, and everything else you have been spitting at us in a very ill mannered way.  Jesus is really proud, although still recovering from the shock that you have declared war on his people.
> 
> Never take a step back???  That is your main problem.  It might help to see the forrest if you were not so suck in looking from above only at the trees.  Can't see below.....how will you know where to lend?  Where the food is?  Know what I mean?
> 
> I am really sorry for Mullaloo Beach.....but .....at least your are that far away.    that your computer missiles cannot harm anyone from there.
> 
> The military which Israel has is not synthetic and it already exists.  It does not need to be raised.
> 
> All of which shows how totally out of touch with things you seem to be.
> 
> Do you have anymore out of your "Christian revenge mode on Jews" you seem to live and breath out of on a daily basis?
> 
> Do you really think you are going to be insulting us with all of that nonsense any decent Christian would simply walk away from, and not want to hear anything else which might come out of you?
> 
> Step back, make the effort.  See what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well 60's you are back with us,I enjoyed your diatribe as usual....you are now mentally Scared by my Trojan Horse comment...You will kill off real Jews eventually and we will be left in their place TRUE SYNTHETIC ZIONISTS,Who have NO CLAIM TO THIS LAND.....SINNERS WHERE YOU GONNA RUN TO,WHERE YOU GONNA HIDE.YOU BOASTING PLASTIC PHARISEE YOU'LL NEVER CONQUER ME.
Click to expand...

We are all done answering you, non sinner, non mentally scared.

Conquering you?  Who gives a crap about you ????

Self important nobody.

Enjoy the beach in Mullaloo and continue to "liquidate" what is left of yourself.

What a hoot.


----------



## rylah

Sorry, 60's, just found this one...

theliq 
*S&P declares Australia a “one trick pony”*
*



*


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really,so that's better than 100% as in 60's Diatribes...So Thanks for your compliment Rylah
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get why all this chest beating
> when You just ran away from an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> take the challenge for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you lot cannot accept is MY TROJAN HORSE Comment...Live with it...Sinners...As you know R...I never take a backwards step...You and 60's have declared WAR...That is a  threat but also  the future of this THREAD,let it begin...and as an interest WHY DID YOU POSE YOURSELF IN YOUR PIC<>LOL.......ps Challenge ON,go raise you SYNTHETIC ARMY,I've drawn a line in the Sand at Mullaloo Beach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In computing, a *Trojan horse*, or *Trojan*, is any malicious computer programwhich misleads users of its true intent. The term is derived from the Ancient Greek story of the deceptive wooden horse that led to the fall of the city of Troy
> 
> We declared war???  On you???   How melodramatic.....
> 
> Sinners????  How very Extreme Christian of you to call us that, and everything else you have been spitting at us in a very ill mannered way.  Jesus is really proud, although still recovering from the shock that you have declared war on his people.
> 
> Never take a step back???  That is your main problem.  It might help to see the forrest if you were not so suck in looking from above only at the trees.  Can't see below.....how will you know where to lend?  Where the food is?  Know what I mean?
> 
> I am really sorry for Mullaloo Beach.....but .....at least your are that far away.    that your computer missiles cannot harm anyone from there.
> 
> The military which Israel has is not synthetic and it already exists.  It does not need to be raised.
> 
> All of which shows how totally out of touch with things you seem to be.
> 
> Do you have anymore out of your "Christian revenge mode on Jews" you seem to live and breath out of on a daily basis?
> 
> Do you really think you are going to be insulting us with all of that nonsense any decent Christian would simply walk away from, and not want to hear anything else which might come out of you?
> 
> Step back, make the effort.  See what happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well 60's you are back with us,I enjoyed your diatribe as usual....you are now mentally Scared by my Trojan Horse comment...You will kill off real Jews eventually and we will be left in their place TRUE SYNTHETIC ZIONISTS,Who have NO CLAIM TO THIS LAND.....SINNERS WHERE YOU GONNA RUN TO,WHERE YOU GONNA HIDE.YOU BOASTING PLASTIC PHARISEE YOU'LL NEVER CONQUER ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all done answering you, non sinner, non mentally scared.
> 
> Conquering you?  Who gives a crap about you ????
> 
> Self important nobody.
> 
> Enjoy the beach in Mullaloo and continue to "liquidate" what is left of yourself.
> 
> What a hoot.
Click to expand...

How weak you and your comments are, PATHETIC.....I got you all wrong>>>My Stupidity

Slam the Door Shut,on your way Out,please


----------



## theliq

rylah said:


> Sorry, 60's, just found this one...
> 
> theliq
> *S&P declares Australia a “one trick pony”*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *


O Rylah,simple one liners,are so amusing,well better a pony than a murdering Zionist Trash.....O YEAH


----------



## P F Tinmore

The never answered question.

When did Israel legally acquire any land?

Cue song and dance.
3
2
1


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1


You never, ever accept the answer.  So we will not waste our time anymore.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> You never, ever accept the answer.  So we will not waste our time anymore.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> You never, ever accept the answer.  So we will not waste our time anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Stop wasting posts.  You have made it beyond clear that nothing will make you accept the existence of Israel as a legal country accepted by the UN and most countries.

You can keep on dancing around it all you like.

Keep hopping and dancing about it.  It will not make Israel cease to exist and be the successful country that it is.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> You never, ever accept the answer.  So we will not waste our time anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop wasting posts.  You have made it beyond clear that nothing will make you accept the existence of Israel as a legal country accepted by the UN and most countries.
> 
> You can keep on dancing around it all you like.
> 
> Keep hopping and dancing about it.  It will not make Israel cease to exist and be the successful country that it is.
Click to expand...

The usual duck.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



Your usual retreat to silly YouTube videos.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


North America, Australia and New Zealand  speak English and French......so what???

Central and South America speaks Spanish and Portuguese......so what???


Before Arabic it was Greek, or Latin, or whichever language the invaders spoke in Ancient Canaan.  It does not make them the indigenous people.

When taken to Babylon, the Jews ended up speaking a form of Babylonian language.  They never became the indigenous people of Babylon, because they were not.  Regardless of the 2500 years of staying there.

Maryse Gargour can create whichever documentary to tell the world that the region of Palestine was conquered by the Arabs once.  SO  WHAT????

It will never make the Arabs the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, no matter what they say, how many documentaries they can come up with.

IF Turkish had been established on the land instead of Arabic, would the land then belong to the Turks, after 500 of the Ottoman Empire?

It does not matter what you find in order to try to delegitimize the Jewish People as indigenous of the Land.

JEWS are the original ZIONISTS.

Zionism has a meaning only to Jews, and none of you wants to know about it because it is Jews, and Jews in your world must continue to be punished for the world not being at peace.

It does not work.  For intelligent, educated people, it will never work.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> You never, ever accept the answer.  So we will not waste our time anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop wasting posts.  You have made it beyond clear that nothing will make you accept the existence of Israel as a legal country accepted by the UN and most countries.
> 
> You can keep on dancing around it all you like.
> 
> Keep hopping and dancing about it.  It will not make Israel cease to exist and be the successful country that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The usual duck.
Click to expand...

Go cook yourself, Mr. Duck.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1



Like other detailed, explicit answers to your pointless babbling, after repeated explanations which you are unable to understand, no one is under any obligation to explain things to you more than a dozen times.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> 1



When the nations recognized Jewish national rights in their homeland.

Do You have any other nation on earth that re-acquired the same piece of land* more times than Jews*?


----------



## P F Tinmore

The still never answered question.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The still never answered question.


#2141

The still never improving case reading comprehension.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Look at the list of languages just among the Muslims in 1931:
Afghan
Albanian
Arabic
Bosnian
Chinese
Circassian
English
French
German
Greek
Gypsy
Hebrew
Hindustani
Indian dialects
Javanese
Kurdish
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Sudanese
Takrurian
Turkish

Clearly the Christians and Muslims themselves are migrants from virtually every country in the world. Those You call Palestinians.

But  let a Jew  speak Russian or even Hebrew... anything BUT Arabic and he's a 'foreigner'.

Q.When did Arabic ever cease to be the language of invaders?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The still never answered question.
> 
> 
> 
> #2141
> 
> The still never improving case reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking about political recognition.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>



The Land speaks Hebrew.  Once again.

For the first and only time in history an indigenous people -- the Jewish People -- has fully regained sovereignty and self-governance on their traditional, historic homeland.  (G-d willing, may all indigenous peoples achieve this).


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The still never answered question.
> 
> 
> 
> #2141
> 
> The still never improving case reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't asking about political recognition.
Click to expand...


Then open the Ottoman records.

You won't find any other nation, besides Jews, who has reacquired the same land more times.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1




Blah, blah, blah.  Asked and answered a hundred times.  When confronted with the answer, you run away.  (Just like you ran away from the direct question asked only yesterday -- Jewish sovereignty -- yes or no?)

Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?  Build your objective case.  (Though it will only be shot down yet again and you will only run away yet again).


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Asked and answered a hundred times.  When confronted with the answer, you run away.  (Just like you ran away from the direct question asked only yesterday -- Jewish sovereignty -- yes or no?)
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?  Build your objective case.  (Though it will only be shot down yet again and you will only run away yet again).
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?


I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.

However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Asked and answered a hundred times.  When confronted with the answer, you run away.  (Just like you ran away from the direct question asked only yesterday -- Jewish sovereignty -- yes or no?)
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?  Build your objective case.  (Though it will only be shot down yet again and you will only run away yet again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
Click to expand...


Treaty with whom, Egypt, Lebanon, Faisal of Mecca or the  other invading Arab colonists?


As long as You're talking about WAR, refer all complaints here:






How about the treaty above?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Asked and answered a hundred times.  When confronted with the answer, you run away.  (Just like you ran away from the direct question asked only yesterday -- Jewish sovereignty -- yes or no?)
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?  Build your objective case.  (Though it will only be shot down yet again and you will only run away yet again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treaty with whom, Egypt, Lebanon, Faisal of Mecca or the  other invading Arab colonists?
> 
> 
> As long as You're talking about WAR, refer all complaints here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the treaty above?
Click to expand...

Deflection. Has nothing to do with land.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Asked and answered a hundred times.  When confronted with the answer, you run away.  (Just like you ran away from the direct question asked only yesterday -- Jewish sovereignty -- yes or no?)
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?  Build your objective case.  (Though it will only be shot down yet again and you will only run away yet again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treaty with whom, Egypt, Lebanon, Faisal of Mecca or the  other invading Arab colonists?
> 
> 
> As long as You're talking about WAR, refer all complaints here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the treaty above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection. Has nothing to do with land.
Click to expand...


Why do you post here when you know so little?

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

*Article Eleven:*
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?
> 
> Cue song and dance.
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Asked and answered a hundred times.  When confronted with the answer, you run away.  (Just like you ran away from the direct question asked only yesterday -- Jewish sovereignty -- yes or no?)
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?  Build your objective case.  (Though it will only be shot down yet again and you will only run away yet again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treaty with whom, Egypt, Lebanon, Faisal of Mecca or the  other invading Arab colonists?
> 
> 
> As long as You're talking about WAR, refer all complaints here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the treaty above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection. Has nothing to do with land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little?
> 
> The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988
> 
> *Article Eleven:*
> The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
Click to expand...

One trick pony.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Asked and answered a hundred times.  When confronted with the answer, you run away.  (Just like you ran away from the direct question asked only yesterday -- Jewish sovereignty -- yes or no?)
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?  Build your objective case.  (Though it will only be shot down yet again and you will only run away yet again).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- by what legal means does ANY sovereign nation "acquire" land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treaty with whom, Egypt, Lebanon, Faisal of Mecca or the  other invading Arab colonists?
> 
> 
> As long as You're talking about WAR, refer all complaints here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the treaty above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection. Has nothing to do with land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little?
> 
> The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988
> 
> *Article Eleven:*
> The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One trick pony.
Click to expand...


Your usual sidestep and retreat. No need to get snippy when your pointless claims are shown to be false.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.



Name the treaties in which Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan acquired land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name the treaties in which Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan acquired land.
Click to expand...

The same ones as Palestine. They were all in the same group.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name the treaties in which Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan acquired land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same ones as Palestine. They were all in the same group.
Click to expand...


Name it.  Quote it.


----------



## Shusha

Come on, P F Tinmore .  Where did you go?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name the treaties in which Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan acquired land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same ones as Palestine. They were all in the same group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name it.  Quote it.
Click to expand...



You know, the Treaty of Lausanne or whatever, that he always refers to.  That treaty actually mentions Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, Jordan or Lebanon.  It merely declares that the former Ottoman citizens shall become the citizens of their respective states.  It does not spell out the identities of those states nor mentions them by name.  Even Syria and Iraq are mentioned in passing.  Israel was the successor state in that area to the former Ottoman Empire.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear this all the time but there is a problem with this. A long time ago it was acceptable to conquer territory. The US and Australia, for example, were established through conquest.
> 
> However, international laws were developed and by the time the 20th century rolled around conquest was illegal. Now the only way to legally acquire territory is through treaty. I am merely asking for someone to post any treaties where Israel acquired any territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name the treaties in which Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan acquired land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same ones as Palestine. They were all in the same group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name it.  Quote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, the Treaty of Lausanne or whatever, that he always refers to.  That treaty actually mentions Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, Jordan or Lebanon.  It merely declares that the former Ottoman citizens shall become the citizens of their respective states.  It does not spell out the identities of those states nor mentions them by name.  Even Syria and Iraq are mentioned in passing.  Israel was the successor state in that area to the former Ottoman Empire.
Click to expand...




ForeverYoung436 said:


> That treaty actually mentions Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, Jordan or Lebanon.


The only reason that Syria and Iraq are mentioned is because they had to define Turkeys new borders. Of course Lebanon, Transjordan, and Palestine would not be involved.


----------



## Shusha

Agreed.  So it was not the Treaty of Lausanne by which Jordan, as an example, acquired land.  Which treaty was it then?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Agreed.  So it was not the Treaty of Lausanne by which Jordan, as an example, acquired land.  Which treaty was it then?


OK, this is how it works. The Allied Powers were predicting the fall of the Turkish Empire. They had treaties dividing the territory into successor states. Some things, that followed international law, is that the territory would not be annexed, and that the inhabitants would be the citizens of their respective state. The citizens would be the sovereigns within their new states.

Of course this was only preliminary as the territory was still under the sovereignty of the Turkish Empire. The only thing that the Treaty of Lausanne did was to release that territory from Turkey and specify nationality and citizenship of the people in those successor states. Again this followed international law.


----------



## Shusha

Fine.  So what by which Treaty did Jordan acquire land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Fine.  So what by which Treaty did Jordan acquire land?


The Treaty of Lausanne released that land to the successor states. Jordan was one of them.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  So what by which Treaty did Jordan acquire land?
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne released that land to the successor states. Jordan was one of them.
Click to expand...


How do you know Jordan was one of them, if Jordan was not mentioned?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  So what by which Treaty did Jordan acquire land?
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne released that land to the successor states. Jordan was one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know Jordan was one of them, if Jordan was not mentioned?
Click to expand...

Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Palestine were all successor states without exception. Why would one be any different than the other?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Palestine were all successor states without exception. Why would one be any different than the other?



But how did Jordan acquire land?  You said land can only be acquired by treaty.  Which one? 

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Lebanon, Jordan or Palestine.  So how do you know they were the successor States?  How do you know they acquired land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Palestine were all successor states without exception. Why would one be any different than the other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how did Jordan acquire land?  You said land can only be acquired by treaty.  Which one?
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Lebanon, Jordan or Palestine.  So how do you know they were the successor States?  How do you know they acquired land?
Click to expand...

You sound like you should do some reading.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You sound like you should do some reading.



Got nothing, huh? 

Look, I'm just following your lead here.  Asking you questions about the statements YOU make.  You said that States need to acquire land and the only way to do that is through a Treaty.  So, by which Treaty did Jordan acquire land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like you should do some reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got nothing, huh?
> 
> Look, I'm just following your lead here.  Asking you questions about the statements YOU make.  You said that States need to acquire land and the only way to do that is through a Treaty.  So, by which Treaty did Jordan acquire land?
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Lausanne released the land to all of the preplanned successor states. All of them. There were no exceptions.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne released the land to all of the preplanned successor states. All of them. There were no exceptions.



We agree.  We especially agree that there were no exceptions.  (You do realize that it is YOU who is trying to make an exception, right?) 

The Treaty of Lausanne does not name the preplanned successor States.  So which Treaty names the preplanned successor State of Jordan and demonstrates Jordan's acquisition of territory?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne released the land to all of the preplanned successor states. All of them. There were no exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agree.  We especially agree that there were no exceptions.  (You do realize that it is YOU who is trying to make an exception, right?)
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne does not name the preplanned successor States.  So which Treaty names the preplanned successor State of Jordan and demonstrates Jordan's acquisition of territory?
Click to expand...

Why are you grasping at straws? What is your agenda?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Why are you grasping at straws? What is your agenda?



Me?  Grasping at straws?  Surely you jest.  

YOU made the claim that States must acquire territory.  YOU made the claim that acquisition of territory can only be made by treaty.  

So, which treaty demonstrates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?  YOU made the claim that it was the Treaty of Lausanne, even though that treaty does not mention Jordan.  

YOU make the claim that there is a list of preplanned States which were intended to acquire territory and did, in point of fact, acquire territory.  Where would I find such a list?  In which treaty is this list found?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you grasping at straws? What is your agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?  Grasping at straws?  Surely you jest.
> 
> YOU made the claim that States must acquire territory.  YOU made the claim that acquisition of territory can only be made by treaty.
> 
> So, which treaty demonstrates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?  YOU made the claim that it was the Treaty of Lausanne, even though that treaty does not mention Jordan.
> 
> YOU make the claim that there is a list of preplanned States which were intended to acquire territory and did, in point of fact, acquire territory.  Where would I find such a list?  In which treaty is this list found?
Click to expand...

I can't comprehend how all of this just goes over your head.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I can't comprehend how all of this just goes over your head.



Hey, I'm just following your argument.  YOU claim that a State has to demonstrate its acquisition of territory through a treaty.  

So, which treaty states that Jordan acquired territory?  OR, if you decide that you don't need a specific treaty which demonstrates that Jordan acquired territory -- but that there was this list of preplanned States -- then show me where this list is.  OR if there is no such list then show me how you know Jordan is on the list and acquired territory.

Or admit that your argument is insupportable.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't comprehend how all of this just goes over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm just following your argument.  YOU claim that a State has to demonstrate its acquisition of territory through a treaty.
> 
> So, which treaty states that Jordan acquired territory?  OR, if you decide that you don't need a specific treaty which demonstrates that Jordan acquired territory -- but that there was this list of preplanned States -- then show me where this list is.  OR if there is no such list then show me how you know Jordan is on the list and acquired territory.
> 
> Or admit that your argument is insupportable.
Click to expand...

It did. It is still there and undisputed.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't comprehend how all of this just goes over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm just following your argument.  YOU claim that a State has to demonstrate its acquisition of territory through a treaty.
> 
> So, which treaty states that Jordan acquired territory?  OR, if you decide that you don't need a specific treaty which demonstrates that Jordan acquired territory -- but that there was this list of preplanned States -- then show me where this list is.  OR if there is no such list then show me how you know Jordan is on the list and acquired territory.
> 
> Or admit that your argument is insupportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did. It is still there and undisputed.
Click to expand...


"It did", what?

Jordan acquired territory by treaty?  Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?  

A treaty which mentions Jordan?  Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan?  If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't comprehend how all of this just goes over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm just following your argument.  YOU claim that a State has to demonstrate its acquisition of territory through a treaty.
> 
> So, which treaty states that Jordan acquired territory?  OR, if you decide that you don't need a specific treaty which demonstrates that Jordan acquired territory -- but that there was this list of preplanned States -- then show me where this list is.  OR if there is no such list then show me how you know Jordan is on the list and acquired territory.
> 
> Or admit that your argument is insupportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did. It is still there and undisputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It did", what?
> 
> Jordan acquired territory by treaty?  Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?
> 
> A treaty which mentions Jordan?  Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan?  If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?
Click to expand...

The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't comprehend how all of this just goes over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm just following your argument.  YOU claim that a State has to demonstrate its acquisition of territory through a treaty.
> 
> So, which treaty states that Jordan acquired territory?  OR, if you decide that you don't need a specific treaty which demonstrates that Jordan acquired territory -- but that there was this list of preplanned States -- then show me where this list is.  OR if there is no such list then show me how you know Jordan is on the list and acquired territory.
> 
> Or admit that your argument is insupportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did. It is still there and undisputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It did", what?
> 
> Jordan acquired territory by treaty?  Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?
> 
> A treaty which mentions Jordan?  Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan?  If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.
Click to expand...



So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?

You are unbelievable.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't comprehend how all of this just goes over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm just following your argument.  YOU claim that a State has to demonstrate its acquisition of territory through a treaty.
> 
> So, which treaty states that Jordan acquired territory?  OR, if you decide that you don't need a specific treaty which demonstrates that Jordan acquired territory -- but that there was this list of preplanned States -- then show me where this list is.  OR if there is no such list then show me how you know Jordan is on the list and acquired territory.
> 
> Or admit that your argument is insupportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did. It is still there and undisputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It did", what?
> 
> Jordan acquired territory by treaty?  Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?
> 
> A treaty which mentions Jordan?  Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan?  If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?
> 
> You are unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
-------------------
The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124

Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm just following your argument.  YOU claim that a State has to demonstrate its acquisition of territory through a treaty.
> 
> So, which treaty states that Jordan acquired territory?  OR, if you decide that you don't need a specific treaty which demonstrates that Jordan acquired territory -- but that there was this list of preplanned States -- then show me where this list is.  OR if there is no such list then show me how you know Jordan is on the list and acquired territory.
> 
> Or admit that your argument is insupportable.
> 
> 
> 
> It did. It is still there and undisputed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It did", what?
> 
> Jordan acquired territory by treaty?  Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?
> 
> A treaty which mentions Jordan?  Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan?  If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?
> 
> You are unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
> -------------------
> The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
Click to expand...


Deflection.

An obscure opinion.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did. It is still there and undisputed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It did", what?
> 
> Jordan acquired territory by treaty?  Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?
> 
> A treaty which mentions Jordan?  Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan?  If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?
> 
> You are unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
> -------------------
> The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> An obscure opinion.
Click to expand...

It is all footnoted.

So, post something different.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It did", what?
> 
> Jordan acquired territory by treaty?  Cool. What treaty creates the acquisition of territory by Jordan?
> 
> A treaty which mentions Jordan?  Or a treaty that doesn't mention Jordan?  If it doesn't mention Jordan how do we know Jordan was meant?
> 
> 
> 
> The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?
> 
> You are unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
> -------------------
> The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> An obscure opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all footnoted.
> 
> So, post something different.
Click to expand...


What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?

Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was already there. The people were already there. the only difference was that they were no longer under Turkish rule. Nobody had to "give" them anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?
> 
> You are unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
> -------------------
> The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> An obscure opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all footnoted.
> 
> So, post something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?
> 
> Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.
Click to expand...

Here is something else to go over your head.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?
> 
> You are unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
> -------------------
> The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> An obscure opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all footnoted.
> 
> So, post something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?
> 
> Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is something else to go over your head.
> 
> https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
Click to expand...


More cutting and pasting you don't understand. You have cut and pasted that previously even though debunked. 

Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are pulling back your whole silly claim and saying that States don't have to acquire territory?
> 
> You are unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
> -------------------
> The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> An obscure opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all footnoted.
> 
> So, post something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?
> 
> Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is something else to go over your head.
> 
> https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
Click to expand...

You always seem to chose those who know as much as you do:

(Reviews on one of his books)

"International Law Perspective" Without International Law
ByNon August 8, 2011
Format: Paperback
As a student of law, I borrowed this book anticipating arguments about Palestinian statehood deeply founded in international law. I looked for references to key principles, decisions and treaties - to no avail. For a book that purports to give an "international law perspective" on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this book contains remarkably little legal content, and rather too much dubious historical commentary. Seeing as it fails both as history and as a legal analysis, I'm left wondering whether this book has any merit at all.

If you value you time and money, avoid this book.

Historically inept and propaganda based revisionist history.
ByM. D Robertson November 15, 2010
Format: Paperback
From the outset Quigley expediently ignores each and every historical and political fact that does not suit his obvious pro-Arab agenda. Ignoring the fact that a substantial and continuous Jewish presence has existed in the ancient Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years (with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem), he embarks upon a selective and revisionist address of San Remo, Versailles and the Palestine Mandate itself with a view to denigrating the state of Israel, its inception and continued existence within present borders.

This study is both historically inept and propaganda based, showing itself to be unashamedly supportive of the Islamic/Arab agenda of eradicating the Jewish state in what it sees as land that is 'forever Islamic'. It is lost upon the author that the Arab and Islamic world gave no credence to UN resolutions in 1948 when they rejected peace/partition and instead sought the genocide of the reborn Jewish state.

Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.

The Arab High Committee in 1948 publicly declaring, just 3 years after the Holocaust;- "The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."

The writer instead making a selective reference to isolated left wing individuals of his own leaning, while ignoring the considerable list of Arab leaders - including the Syrian PM of the day Haled al-Azm - who rubbish his remarks, while showing that the Jewish leadership indeed pleaded for the Arabs to stay. This as the Arab leadership encouraged their brethren to flee in order that they would not impede the intended massacre of the Jewish state, while also inciting them to return afterwards to share in the spoils.

The writer is oblivious to the statement of current PLO Chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) on the same refugee issue, who in March 1976 wrote in the official publication of the PLO (FaZastin al-Thawra) that "..The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians. .. . but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe..."

As to the simultaneous enforced expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Arab lands, the book gives such a wide berth, in much the same way that he ignores statements from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" who stated in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March 1977;-
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

Historically revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda, together with revisionism are the order of the day in a book that has an obvious agenda from the outset. Astute observers will be only too aware that for decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Having failed militarily the invention of new public relations themes or disinformation are becoming increasingly common. It sadly seems that re-writing history is now becoming more prominent.

Indeed, this study seems oblivious to the fact that it was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea. References are widely available.... but not in this book.

I would not give this book even one star if the option were available but would respectfully direct readers to the widely available response to John Quigley by Professor Louis Rene Beres and the 25 year study of Professor Howard Grief entitled "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law".

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.
> -------------------
> The Treaty of Peace between the allied powers and Turkey officially ending World War I was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.121 Setting out the legal status of the territories detached from Turkey, the Treaty had the effect of law in Palestine, as it was extended to this country by an ordinance,122 on 6 August 1924.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the perspective of public international law. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British government pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine.”123 And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality.”124
> 
> Most of the post-World War I peace treaties embodied nationality provisions and the Treaty of Lausanne was no exception.125 It addressed the nationality of the inhabitants in the territories detached from Turkey in Articles 30-6. These articles replaced, with certain modifications, Articles 123-31 of the draft Treaty of Sèvres of 1920.126
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> An obscure opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all footnoted.
> 
> So, post something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?
> 
> Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is something else to go over your head.
> 
> https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always seem to chose those who know as much as you do:
> 
> (Reviews on one of his books)
> 
> "International Law Perspective" Without International Law
> ByNon August 8, 2011
> Format: Paperback
> As a student of law, I borrowed this book anticipating arguments about Palestinian statehood deeply founded in international law. I looked for references to key principles, decisions and treaties - to no avail. For a book that purports to give an "international law perspective" on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this book contains remarkably little legal content, and rather too much dubious historical commentary. Seeing as it fails both as history and as a legal analysis, I'm left wondering whether this book has any merit at all.
> 
> If you value you time and money, avoid this book.
> 
> Historically inept and propaganda based revisionist history.
> ByM. D Robertson November 15, 2010
> Format: Paperback
> From the outset Quigley expediently ignores each and every historical and political fact that does not suit his obvious pro-Arab agenda. Ignoring the fact that a substantial and continuous Jewish presence has existed in the ancient Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years (with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem), he embarks upon a selective and revisionist address of San Remo, Versailles and the Palestine Mandate itself with a view to denigrating the state of Israel, its inception and continued existence within present borders.
> 
> This study is both historically inept and propaganda based, showing itself to be unashamedly supportive of the Islamic/Arab agenda of eradicating the Jewish state in what it sees as land that is 'forever Islamic'. It is lost upon the author that the Arab and Islamic world gave no credence to UN resolutions in 1948 when they rejected peace/partition and instead sought the genocide of the reborn Jewish state.
> 
> Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.
> 
> The Arab High Committee in 1948 publicly declaring, just 3 years after the Holocaust;- "The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."
> 
> The writer instead making a selective reference to isolated left wing individuals of his own leaning, while ignoring the considerable list of Arab leaders - including the Syrian PM of the day Haled al-Azm - who rubbish his remarks, while showing that the Jewish leadership indeed pleaded for the Arabs to stay. This as the Arab leadership encouraged their brethren to flee in order that they would not impede the intended massacre of the Jewish state, while also inciting them to return afterwards to share in the spoils.
> 
> The writer is oblivious to the statement of current PLO Chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) on the same refugee issue, who in March 1976 wrote in the official publication of the PLO (FaZastin al-Thawra) that "..The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians. .. . but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe..."
> 
> As to the simultaneous enforced expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Arab lands, the book gives such a wide berth, in much the same way that he ignores statements from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" who stated in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March 1977;-
> "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
> 
> Historically revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda, together with revisionism are the order of the day in a book that has an obvious agenda from the outset. Astute observers will be only too aware that for decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Having failed militarily the invention of new public relations themes or disinformation are becoming increasingly common. It sadly seems that re-writing history is now becoming more prominent.
> 
> Indeed, this study seems oblivious to the fact that it was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea. References are widely available.... but not in this book.
> 
> I would not give this book even one star if the option were available but would respectfully direct readers to the widely available response to John Quigley by Professor Louis Rene Beres and the 25 year study of Professor Howard Grief entitled "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law".
> 
> Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective
Click to expand...

Oh jeese, the perspective of an Israeli shill



Sixties Fan said:


> Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.


What this liar did not mention was that about 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the Arab armies entered Palestine. Do you have something less biased?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


>


Oh jeese, another lying Israeli shill.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh jeese, another lying Israeli shill.
Click to expand...


Oh Jesse, more whining over your hurt feelings.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> An obscure opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> It is all footnoted.
> 
> So, post something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?
> 
> Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is something else to go over your head.
> 
> https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always seem to chose those who know as much as you do:
> 
> (Reviews on one of his books)
> 
> 
> "International Law Perspective" Without International Law
> ByNon August 8, 2011
> Format: Paperback
> As a student of law, I borrowed this book anticipating arguments about Palestinian statehood deeply founded in international law. I looked for references to key principles, decisions and treaties - to no avail. For a book that purports to give an "international law perspective" on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this book contains remarkably little legal content, and rather too much dubious historical commentary. Seeing as it fails both as history and as a legal analysis, I'm left wondering whether this book has any merit at all.
> 
> If you value you time and money, avoid this book.
> 
> Historically inept and propaganda based revisionist history.
> ByM. D Robertson November 15, 2010
> Format: Paperback
> From the outset Quigley expediently ignores each and every historical and political fact that does not suit his obvious pro-Arab agenda. Ignoring the fact that a substantial and continuous Jewish presence has existed in the ancient Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years (with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem), he embarks upon a selective and revisionist address of San Remo, Versailles and the Palestine Mandate itself with a view to denigrating the state of Israel, its inception and continued existence within present borders.
> 
> This study is both historically inept and propaganda based, showing itself to be unashamedly supportive of the Islamic/Arab agenda of eradicating the Jewish state in what it sees as land that is 'forever Islamic'. It is lost upon the author that the Arab and Islamic world gave no credence to UN resolutions in 1948 when they rejected peace/partition and instead sought the genocide of the reborn Jewish state.
> 
> Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.
> 
> The Arab High Committee in 1948 publicly declaring, just 3 years after the Holocaust;- "The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."
> 
> The writer instead making a selective reference to isolated left wing individuals of his own leaning, while ignoring the considerable list of Arab leaders - including the Syrian PM of the day Haled al-Azm - who rubbish his remarks, while showing that the Jewish leadership indeed pleaded for the Arabs to stay. This as the Arab leadership encouraged their brethren to flee in order that they would not impede the intended massacre of the Jewish state, while also inciting them to return afterwards to share in the spoils.
> 
> The writer is oblivious to the statement of current PLO Chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) on the same refugee issue, who in March 1976 wrote in the official publication of the PLO (FaZastin al-Thawra) that "..The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians. .. . but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe..."
> 
> As to the simultaneous enforced expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Arab lands, the book gives such a wide berth, in much the same way that he ignores statements from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" who stated in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March 1977;-
> "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
> 
> Historically revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda, together with revisionism are the order of the day in a book that has an obvious agenda from the outset. Astute observers will be only too aware that for decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Having failed militarily the invention of new public relations themes or disinformation are becoming increasingly common. It sadly seems that re-writing history is now becoming more prominent.
> 
> Indeed, this study seems oblivious to the fact that it was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea. References are widely available.... but not in this book.
> 
> I would not give this book even one star if the option were available but would respectfully direct readers to the widely available response to John Quigley by Professor Louis Rene Beres and the 25 year study of Professor Howard Grief entitled "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law".
> 
> Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, the perspective of an Israeli shill
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What this liar did not mention was that about 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the Arab armies entered Palestine. Do you have something less biased?
Click to expand...


Let us spell it out for you.

What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?
The Jews accepted the proposal and the Arabs say no and start attacking the Jews.  November 1947.

The Arab attacks on Jews continue until Israel declares Independence.

Then, many Arabs who lived in what became Israel continued to fight the Jews, but the Arab League and leaders, including the Jordanian soldiers, tell the Arab population to leave for about two weeks because then they will be able to destroy Israel and get rid of all the Jews once and for all.

Those Arabs who listened to their leaders left and the Arabs lost the war.

Which means that those who left hoping for the Jews to be murdered, were not going to be allowed to return in order to attempt to continue to murder Jews.

It is called WAR.

The Arabs actually declared it in 1920 and kept hoping for the Jews to be defeated and made to run away from their homeland.  It did not work.  So, the Arab league decided to put all of their armies together in a show of force in May 1948 and .........it did not work.

The Jews won.
The Arabs lost.

That is how wars go.

Many of the Arabs who were made to leave have been allowed to return, but all.  Because they do not have a right to return especially if their goal is to continue to attack Jews and destroy Israel.

There are only about 20,000 of those left.  In another 20 years, the refugee issue of "right of return" to Israel will be over and done with.  Their descendants do not have ANY rights of return, any more than any other person who has been made a refugee anywhere else in the world.

The Muslims declared war on the Jews and Israel.  THEY LOST.
Big time.
Not only once, but four times.

IT IS OVER  !!!!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all footnoted.
> 
> So, post something different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does footnoting have to do with an opinion?
> 
> Copy and paste something else you don't understand and can't defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is something else to go over your head.
> 
> https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always seem to chose those who know as much as you do:
> 
> (Reviews on one of his books)
> 
> 
> "International Law Perspective" Without International Law
> ByNon August 8, 2011
> Format: Paperback
> As a student of law, I borrowed this book anticipating arguments about Palestinian statehood deeply founded in international law. I looked for references to key principles, decisions and treaties - to no avail. For a book that purports to give an "international law perspective" on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, this book contains remarkably little legal content, and rather too much dubious historical commentary. Seeing as it fails both as history and as a legal analysis, I'm left wondering whether this book has any merit at all.
> 
> If you value you time and money, avoid this book.
> 
> Historically inept and propaganda based revisionist history.
> ByM. D Robertson November 15, 2010
> Format: Paperback
> From the outset Quigley expediently ignores each and every historical and political fact that does not suit his obvious pro-Arab agenda. Ignoring the fact that a substantial and continuous Jewish presence has existed in the ancient Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years (with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem), he embarks upon a selective and revisionist address of San Remo, Versailles and the Palestine Mandate itself with a view to denigrating the state of Israel, its inception and continued existence within present borders.
> 
> This study is both historically inept and propaganda based, showing itself to be unashamedly supportive of the Islamic/Arab agenda of eradicating the Jewish state in what it sees as land that is 'forever Islamic'. It is lost upon the author that the Arab and Islamic world gave no credence to UN resolutions in 1948 when they rejected peace/partition and instead sought the genocide of the reborn Jewish state.
> 
> Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.
> 
> The Arab High Committee in 1948 publicly declaring, just 3 years after the Holocaust;- "The Arabs have taken into their own hands, the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will be driven out."
> 
> The writer instead making a selective reference to isolated left wing individuals of his own leaning, while ignoring the considerable list of Arab leaders - including the Syrian PM of the day Haled al-Azm - who rubbish his remarks, while showing that the Jewish leadership indeed pleaded for the Arabs to stay. This as the Arab leadership encouraged their brethren to flee in order that they would not impede the intended massacre of the Jewish state, while also inciting them to return afterwards to share in the spoils.
> 
> The writer is oblivious to the statement of current PLO Chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) on the same refugee issue, who in March 1976 wrote in the official publication of the PLO (FaZastin al-Thawra) that "..The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians. .. . but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe..."
> 
> As to the simultaneous enforced expulsion of nearly one million Jews from Arab lands, the book gives such a wide berth, in much the same way that he ignores statements from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" who stated in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March 1977;-
> "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
> 
> Historically revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda, together with revisionism are the order of the day in a book that has an obvious agenda from the outset. Astute observers will be only too aware that for decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Having failed militarily the invention of new public relations themes or disinformation are becoming increasingly common. It sadly seems that re-writing history is now becoming more prominent.
> 
> Indeed, this study seems oblivious to the fact that it was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea. References are widely available.... but not in this book.
> 
> I would not give this book even one star if the option were available but would respectfully direct readers to the widely available response to John Quigley by Professor Louis Rene Beres and the 25 year study of Professor Howard Grief entitled "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law".
> 
> Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, the perspective of an Israeli shill
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citing the allegedly enforced expulsion of Arab refugees in 1948 the writer expediently overlooks that in 1948 there would not have been one single Arab refugee - not even one - had the Arab states not chosen to go to war in defiance of a United Nations resolution with the declared aim of pursuing the genocide the newly reborn State of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What this liar did not mention was that about 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before the Arab armies entered Palestine. Do you have something less biased?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us spell it out for you.
> 
> What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?
> The Jews accepted the proposal and the Arabs say no and start attacking the Jews.  November 1947.
> 
> The Arab attacks on Jews continue until Israel declares Independence.
> 
> Then, many Arabs who lived in what became Israel continued to fight the Jews, but the Arab League and leaders, including the Jordanian soldiers, tell the Arab population to leave for about two weeks because then they will be able to destroy Israel and get rid of all the Jews once and for all.
> 
> Those Arabs who listened to their leaders left and the Arabs lost the war.
> 
> Which means that those who left hoping for the Jews to be murdered, were not going to be allowed to return in order to attempt to continue to murder Jews.
> 
> It is called WAR.
> 
> The Arabs actually declared it in 1920 and kept hoping for the Jews to be defeated and made to run away from their homeland.  It did not work.  So, the Arab league decided to put all of their armies together in a show of force in May 1948 and .........it did not work.
> 
> The Jews won.
> The Arabs lost.
> 
> That is how wars go.
> 
> Many of the Arabs who were made to leave have been allowed to return, but all.  Because they do not have a right to return especially if their goal is to continue to attack Jews and destroy Israel.
> 
> There are only about 20,000 of those left.  In another 20 years, the refugee issue of "right of return" to Israel will be over and done with.  Their descendants do not have ANY rights of return, any more than any other person who has been made a refugee anywhere else in the world.
> 
> The Muslims declared war on the Jews and Israel.  THEY LOST.
> Big time.
> Not only once, but four times.
> 
> IT IS OVER  !!!!
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> The Jews won.
> The Arabs lost.


Israeli bullshit, of course. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. An armistice halts fighting without declaring winners or losers. The armistice agreements were with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?


The UN had no sovereignty over Palestine. They had no authority to divide Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had no sovereignty over Palestine. They had no authority to divide Palestine.
Click to expand...


The UN did not divide the geographic area of Palestine. Contrary to your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not), there was, therefore, no Arab-Islamist sovereignty. 

Thanks for bringing up the same nonsensical arguments that have been addressed for you many times before.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had no sovereignty over Palestine. They had no authority to divide Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UN did not divide the geographic area of Palestine. Contrary to your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not), there was, therefore, no Arab-Islamist sovereignty.
> 
> Thanks for bringing up the same nonsensical arguments that have been addressed for you many times before.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not),


Link?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is? This is how it went down in Palestine which was the same for all of the new states.



I'm not trying to make it complicated . I am illuminating the inconsistencies in your argument and showing how you hold Israel (read: Jews) to different standards than you hold others -- even to the extent of *trying to make international law work differently for Jews.  *

The Treaty of Lausanne does not create States.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not define the acquisition of territory for any States.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not even name the States which arose in the ME after Turkey renounced that territory.

You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land".  The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land".  How did they do so?  Through what instruments did they do so?

I am particularly interested in your argument concerning Jordan -- since it was removed from the territory once referred to as "Palestine".  How did that happen?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when the UN Partitions the rest of the Mandate into two possible States?
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had no sovereignty over Palestine. They had no authority to divide Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UN did not divide the geographic area of Palestine. Contrary to your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not), there was, therefore, no Arab-Islamist sovereignty.
> 
> Thanks for bringing up the same nonsensical arguments that have been addressed for you many times before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your silly notion that your invented "country of Pal'istan" existed (it did not),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Link to what never existed?

Thanks for being befuddled about all the same issues that have been addressed for you multiple times across multiple threads.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?


Turkish land was released to them by the Treaty of Lausanne.

IOW, the land was acquired by treaty.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish land was released to them by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> IOW, the land was acquired by treaty.
Click to expand...

Turkish land was released to whom?   Make it clear.

Which treaty are you continuing to talk about?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish land was released to them by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> IOW, the land was acquired by treaty.
Click to expand...


AGAIN, the Treaty of Lausanne did not release land "to them".  Turkey ceded that land unconditionally and that land's final status was placed in the hands of the Allied Powers under the Mandate system.  But if you want to argue that the Treaty of Lausanne ceded the territory to specific future States ("them"), fine.  Its your argument.  

Which States?  How do you know it was those States?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish land was released to them by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> IOW, the land was acquired by treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turkish land was released to whom?   Make it clear.
> 
> Which treaty are you continuing to talk about?
Click to expand...


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have claimed that in order for a State to be created it needs to "acquire land". The extrapolation of that claim is that Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan successfully "acquired land". How did they do so? Through what instruments did they do so?
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish land was released to them by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> IOW, the land was acquired by treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turkish land was released to whom?   Make it clear.
> 
> Which treaty are you continuing to talk about?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is exactly how you are feeling, as you continuously confuse what happened and the who and the why, where and when.

At least you are honest about it, now.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Turkey ceded that land unconditionally and that land's final status was placed in the hands of the Allied Powers under the Mandate system.


And the Mandates had a non annexation policy. They held the land in trust for the people.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey ceded that land unconditionally and that land's final status was placed in the hands of the Allied Powers under the Mandate system.
> 
> 
> 
> And the Mandates had a non annexation policy. They held the land in trust for the people.
Click to expand...


We agree.

But you are dodging the question.  Since the Treaty of Lausanne did not cede land to any particular people or State -- how do you know that ANY of the States which arose from that _terra nullius _are correct and legitimate States?

Particularly, Jordan.  How did Jordan become a successor State?  It can't be the Treaty of Lausanne because that treaty did not mention Jordan (or any of the others).  So how?


----------



## theliq

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North America, Australia and New Zealand  speak English and French......so what???
> 
> Central and South America speaks Spanish and Portuguese......so what???
> 
> 
> Before Arabic it was Greek, or Latin, or whichever language the invaders spoke in Ancient Canaan.  It does not make them the indigenous people.
> 
> When taken to Babylon, the Jews ended up speaking a form of Babylonian language.  They never became the indigenous people of Babylon, because they were not.  Regardless of the 2500 years of staying there.
> 
> Maryse Gargour can create whichever documentary to tell the world that the region of Palestine was conquered by the Arabs once.  SO  WHAT????
> 
> It will never make the Arabs the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, no matter what they say, how many documentaries they can come up with.
> 
> IF Turkish had been established on the land instead of Arabic, would the land then belong to the Turks, after 500 of the Ottoman Empire?
> 
> It does not matter what you find in order to try to delegitimize the Jewish People as indigenous of the Land.
> 
> JEWS are the original ZIONISTS.
> 
> Zionism has a meaning only to Jews, and none of you wants to know about it because it is Jews, and Jews in your world must continue to be punished for the world not being at peace.
> 
> It does not work.  For intelligent, educated people, it will never work.
Click to expand...

All nonsense,the Zionist rabble running Israel today Claim to be Jews....THEY ARE NOT,even by your own anology they are converts of other ethnic NONE JEWISH traditions but just converted to the Judeaic faith...They are known as the SYNTHETICS...they have virtually wiped out the REAL SEMITIC JEWS of the Holy Land and Palestine...The Irony is,that they will become a SYNTHETIC VERSION of the people they pretend to be....BUT NOT SEMITIC AND NOT REAL JEWS.....so we have a CULT Pretending to BE PEOPLE THEY ARE NOT....JUST A PLASTIC PEOPLE WITH NO CLAIM TO THIS LAND AT ALL.....IN THE END THE REAL SEMITIC PEOPLE OF THIS LAND,THE PALESTINIANS WILL RETURN AND OWN WHAT IS THIERS,The Zionists like Gypsies will move on or be moved on for obvious reasons...these Synthetics Zionists will try to hang on to what has never been theirs but it will all be to no AVAIL....They will scatter and be absorbed in time into other societies and countries and vanish forever....In time Zionists will be merely a footnote of History,it will say>>>>>>Zionism..A CULT DEVISED BY A GAY ATHIEST JEW IN THE LATE 1880's which grew into a formidable force in the 20th and 21ft Centuries,even to the extent of OCCUPYING PALESTINE...This CULT eventually died out...because they could not keep up the Pretence of being Jewish as the were only converts to that Ancient People and not Jews at all of course.for information on Real Semitic Jews and their Semitic Cousins the Palestinians see pages 331 to 451


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore

It is duly noted that you have abandoned the argument having failing to prove your claim that States must acquire land and having failed to demonstrate how this acquisition is accomplished.  The only reasonable conclusion is that you wish to hold Israel, and only Israel, to non-existent standards of international law. 

The next time you post:


P F Tinmore said:


> The never answered question.
> 
> When did Israel legally acquire any land?




Please come prepared to demonstrate how any State (but especially Jordan) legally acquires land.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


Do you have anything by a real historian telling history as it really happened, and not an anti Israel "Palestinian" who has distorted everything about the Balfour Declaration and EVERYTHING the Arabs did to keep the Jews from recreating their Nation ON their ancient Homeland?

Is that ALL you have?  As Always?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have anything by a real historian telling history as it really happened, and not an anti Israel "Palestinian" who has distorted everything about the Balfour Declaration and EVERYTHING the Arabs did to keep the Jews from recreating their Nation ON their ancient Homeland?
> 
> Is that ALL you have?  As Always?
Click to expand...

You can post Israel's bullshit if you like. This is an open forum.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>



Well, at least she properly acknowledges that the King David Hotel was a British military installation and therefore a military objective.  

Why does she begin there?  To make the point that Jews are terrorists (read: evil).  And then she carries on with irrelevancies like minority populations.  You don't need to be a majority in order to have rights.  Especially in your own homeland.


----------



## Shusha




----------



## Shusha

Shusha said:


>



Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore. 

But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default. 

It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Guardian falsely suggests Haifa Arabs in 1948 faced “mass evictions” by Israeli forces


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
Click to expand...

What is the spirit of Zionism?

Settler colonialism.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
Click to expand...

Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND

Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.

You are a colonialist in the USA.

Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND
> 
> Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.
> 
> You are a colonialist in the USA.
> 
> Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.
Click to expand...

Yeah...whatever.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND
> 
> Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.
> 
> You are a colonialist in the USA.
> 
> Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...whatever.
Click to expand...


Stunningly inept.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND
> 
> Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.
> 
> You are a colonialist in the USA.
> 
> Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND
> 
> Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.
> 
> You are a colonialist in the USA.
> 
> Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...whatever.
Click to expand...

Says the colonist who lives in "wherever".


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND
> 
> Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.
> 
> You are a colonialist in the USA.
> 
> Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
Click to expand...

The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND
> 
> Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.
> 
> You are a colonialist in the USA.
> 
> Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.
Click to expand...

You are correct.  You are always the wrong person one.
No point in wasting time with anything with you.

"Israel does not exist"  "Stolen land"  "ZIonists are converted, not real Jews"

Your repertoire is magnificent.

But it does not change who the indigenous people of the land have always been and CONTINUE to be.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND
> 
> Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.
> 
> You are a colonialist in the USA.
> 
> Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct.  You are always the wrong person one.
> No point in wasting time with anything with you.
> 
> "Israel does not exist"  "Stolen land"  "ZIonists are converted, not real Jews"
> 
> Your repertoire is magnificent.
> 
> But it does not change who the indigenous people of the land have always been and CONTINUE to be.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Jews and a lot of other people.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism = recreation of the Jewish Nation ON ITS ANCIENT HOMELAND
> 
> Middle East, a word created to encompass all the lands the Arabs invaded, conquered and colonized since the 7th century CE    OUTSIDE of their indigenous land, ARABIA.
> 
> You are a colonialist in the USA.
> 
> Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.  Have been for over 3800 years.  YOU are not going to change that, ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct.  You are always the wrong person one.
> No point in wasting time with anything with you.
> 
> "Israel does not exist"  "Stolen land"  "ZIonists are converted, not real Jews"
> 
> Your repertoire is magnificent.
> 
> But it does not change who the indigenous people of the land have always been and CONTINUE to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Jews and a lot of other people.
Click to expand...

Take a nap.  You spend too much time hating Jews and denying them their ancient homeland.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct.  You are always the wrong person one.
> No point in wasting time with anything with you.
> 
> "Israel does not exist"  "Stolen land"  "ZIonists are converted, not real Jews"
> 
> Your repertoire is magnificent.
> 
> But it does not change who the indigenous people of the land have always been and CONTINUE to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Jews and a lot of other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a nap.  You spend too much time hating Jews and denying them their ancient homeland.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the people who came up out of Egypt?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
> 
> 
> 
> The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct.  You are always the wrong person one.
> No point in wasting time with anything with you.
> 
> "Israel does not exist"  "Stolen land"  "ZIonists are converted, not real Jews"
> 
> Your repertoire is magnificent.
> 
> But it does not change who the indigenous people of the land have always been and CONTINUE to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Jews and a lot of other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a nap.  You spend too much time hating Jews and denying them their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean the people who came up out of Egypt?
Click to expand...

zzzzzzzzzzz

Not funny, but real, how their DNA does not say Egypt, but ancient Canaan, aka  Israel.

Now, take a snooze


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You call it funny, P F Tinmore.
> 
> But she has a valid point to make. Continuing to blame the British for the existence of Israel denies Jewish agency. It holds their dhimmi status as the default.
> 
> It also reflects, I think, Arab Palestinians own feelings of victimization and lack of ability to create a nation. It permits them to continue to wallow in their own lack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the spirit of Zionism?
> 
> Settler colonialism.
Click to expand...


Hypocrite. Arguing return for one peoples and "settler colonialism" for the other. 

You keep trying to apply different rules to the Jewish people, whether moral concepts or international law.


----------



## Sixties Fan

To Understand Zionism, Read Herzl Not Mahmoud Abbas | HonestReporting


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
> 
> 
> 
> The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct.  You are always the wrong person one.
> No point in wasting time with anything with you.
> 
> "Israel does not exist"  "Stolen land"  "ZIonists are converted, not real Jews"
> 
> Your repertoire is magnificent.
> 
> But it does not change who the indigenous people of the land have always been and CONTINUE to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Jews and a lot of other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a nap.  You spend too much time hating Jews and denying them their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean the people who came up out of Egypt?
Click to expand...

The Land of Canaan to Egypt back to Canaan.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stunningly inept.
> 
> 
> 
> The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct.  You are always the wrong person one.
> No point in wasting time with anything with you.
> 
> "Israel does not exist"  "Stolen land"  "ZIonists are converted, not real Jews"
> 
> Your repertoire is magnificent.
> 
> But it does not change who the indigenous people of the land have always been and CONTINUE to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Jews and a lot of other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a nap.  You spend too much time hating Jews and denying them their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean the people who came up out of Egypt?
Click to expand...


Funny last time checked, the most common Palestinian surname was al-Masri.
And the most famous Palestinian poster girl was of a Qatari tribe.

But I'm not expecting You to make any sense.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. You are arguing with the wrong person.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.  You are always the wrong person one.
> No point in wasting time with anything with you.
> 
> "Israel does not exist"  "Stolen land"  "ZIonists are converted, not real Jews"
> 
> Your repertoire is magnificent.
> 
> But it does not change who the indigenous people of the land have always been and CONTINUE to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Jews and a lot of other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a nap.  You spend too much time hating Jews and denying them their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean the people who came up out of Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny last time checked, the most common Palestinian surname was al-Masri.
> And the most famous Palestinian poster girl was of a Qatari tribe.
> 
> But I'm not expecting You to make any sense.
Click to expand...


al-Masri means "from Egypt."  The Hebrew word for Egypt is Misraim.


----------



## Sixties Fan

UK Christian Group Apologizes for Failures of British Mandate, Suffering of Jewish People


----------



## Sixties Fan

(Second) Partition Plan Made Simple - Israel Diaries


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Does that video come with a mail in rebate for a Koran?


----------



## Sixties Fan

[  No Mention of a Palestinian group, separate from all other Muslims.   All Muslims living on the land were identified as Muslims ]


You know how Muslims love to say how they lived harmoniously with Christians and Jews in the Holy Land before Zionism?

Not so much.

From "Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Holy Land, Mount Libanon and Cyprus, in the year 1814" by Henry Light:






(full article online)

Jews in Jerusalem were treated with contempt by Muslims, Christians in 1814 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

lngathering and lndependence part 1


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

"BALFOUR’S LEGACY: Confronting the Consequences"


----------



## Hollie




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Let's bet no one here watches Your 2 hour long videos?

Frankly by Your responses it seems You neither.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## sparky

good lord ,threads like these are like and ascii conflaguration burning it's way down into the bowels of the 'net.....~S~


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

[Getting to know you -Yousef Munayyer ]
 ]

Canary Mission


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ Getting to know you - Leila Farsakh ]

Canary Mission


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


[ Getting to know  Amahl Bishara

Canary Mission


----------



## P F Tinmore

Thanks, it's good to know that Palestine has so many intelligent, articulate, and well educated supporters.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Thanks, it's good to know that Palestine has so many intelligent, articulate, and well educated supporters.


Each and every one of them a prime example of terrorism supporters , lying and cheating in order to get something which never belonged to the Arab people.
Well taught by Mohammad's ideology of conquest, and never being conquered.

What a waste of education.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, it's good to know that Palestine has so many intelligent, articulate, and well educated supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> Each and every one of them a prime example of terrorism supporters , lying and cheating in order to get something which never belonged to the Arab people.
> Well taught by Mohammad's ideology of conquest, and never being conquered.
> 
> What a waste of education.
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> Each and every one of them a prime example of terrorism supporters


Pfffft, Israeli propaganda bullshit.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, it's good to know that Palestine has so many intelligent, articulate, and well educated supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> Each and every one of them a prime example of terrorism supporters , lying and cheating in order to get something which never belonged to the Arab people.
> Well taught by Mohammad's ideology of conquest, and never being conquered.
> 
> What a waste of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each and every one of them a prime example of terrorism supporters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli propaganda bullshit.
Click to expand...

Proven correct for the past 100 years.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

A bravery fiercer than death


----------



## Sixties Fan

New York Times Greets Israel’s 70th With Piece Claiming 1948 Was ‘Catastrophe’


----------



## Sixties Fan

Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947. Two states – Jewish and Arab – were to be established between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Jews cheered the patchy territorial crazy-quilt they were accorded, existentially untenable though it was, and proceeded to meet all UN prerequisites for independence. The Arabs vehemently rejected the offer of a Palestinian state and, in vituperative defiance of the UN, set out to destroy the embryonic Jewish state rather than construct one of their own.

On Israel’s first day, Arab League secretary-general Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha, articulated Arab priorities. Sending forth seven Arab armies to slay the newborn “Zionist entity,” he declared: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” The Arab agenda and intentions were unmistakable. New Israel’s citizens harbored no misconceptions.

The Arabs had already violently opposed the Jewish community which existed in this country pre-WWII and which was ripe for statehood before the Holocaust. The “Great Arab Revolt” of 1936-39 – fomented by the still-revered Haj Amin al-Husseini and financed by Nazi Germany – merely delayed Jewish independence. The Arabs denied asylum here to desperate Jewish escapees from Hitler’s hell. Thereby they doomed these refugees to death. The blood of numerous Holocaust victims indelibly stains Arab hands.

(full article online)

Another Tack: The first day


----------



## Sixties Fan

Thank you, Grandpa – Israel Hayom


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.


Israeli bullshit, of course.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
Click to expand...

YOUR  own, endless BS.

Am Israel Chai  !!!!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOUR  own, endless BS.
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!!!
Click to expand...

17:00 to 18:45


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOUR  own, endless BS.
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17:00 to 18:45
Click to expand...


It's funny that you spend your entire existence in the bowels of YouTube.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOUR  own, endless BS.
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17:00 to 18:45
Click to expand...

The video discusses Judea and Samaria (taken by Jordan in 1948) and not about Israel

Genius  !!!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOUR  own, endless BS.
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17:00 to 18:45
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video discusses Judea and Samaria (taken by Jordan in 1948) and not about Israel
> 
> Genius  !!!
Click to expand...

He was saying how resolution 181 meant nothing.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those theoretical questions _(calling for the hypothetical:  "what if")_ where the answer is:  "We'll never know now."
> 
> When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father.  The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten.  The names and places like Monte Cassino, the  Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them.  The Battle of Bataan and  Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me.  They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​
> It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers.  I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs.  The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.
> 
> When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling  the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:
> View attachment 56920​
> Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units _(Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army)_ were both NAZIs: (i)  Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii)  Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht.  Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.
> 
> Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element _(Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again RoccoR descends into spouting drivel, whilest simultaneously trying to create sympathy by invoking the Holocaust and "NAZI" Arabs. Are you taking lessons from Phoney? It's embarassing.
> 
> Had you bothered to do even a modicum of research, you would have discovered that ATLAS was an Abwehr  operation, nothing at all to do with the SS, the unit was composed of ex-Brandenburg Regiment German soldiers who were born in Palestine amongst the Templar community of slighly whacko Protestant Christian "millenials", the two Muslims involved Hasan Salama and Abdul Latif were never Nazis.
> 
> Fawzi al-Qawuqi was given a colonel's rank for propaganda purposes, but never swore any German military oath, nor did he declare any allegience to Hitler.  Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni's "ties" to Hitler consisted of one 90 minute meeting during which a photo was taken.
Click to expand...



yep he has gone into desperation mode and is doing this knowing you speak the truth LOL


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel’s birth was legally ordained via the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOUR  own, endless BS.
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17:00 to 18:45
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video discusses Judea and Samaria (taken by Jordan in 1948) and not about Israel
> 
> Genius  !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was saying how resolution 181 meant nothing.
Click to expand...

Resolution 181 and the Arab refusal to any partition of the Mandate, wanting it all to be Muslim land, with the Jews as a minority, again and always, or have the Jews just dead.

The Arabs rejected the partition plan of 1937.
They again rejected the partition plan of 1947.

Islam and rejection are synonymous.


----------



## Sixties Fan

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood [and a parallel Arab state], but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, realities on the ground in the wake of Arab aggression [and Israel’s survival] became the basis for UN efforts to bring peace.


Aware of Arab’s past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to:

“Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [Italics by author]


The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to adopt the Resolution:

“The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations. Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack
and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say.” [Italics by author]

Arab’s intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted:

(full article online)

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf
> 
> The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood [and a parallel Arab state], but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, realities on the ground in the wake of Arab aggression [and Israel’s survival] became the basis for UN efforts to bring peace.
> 
> 
> Aware of Arab’s past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to:
> 
> “Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [Italics by author]
> 
> 
> The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to adopt the Resolution:
> 
> “The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations. Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack
> and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say.” [Italics by author]
> 
> Arab’s intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted:
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf


What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a
nonbinding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation
hinged on acceptance by both parties –
Arabs and Jews.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf
> 
> The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood [and a parallel Arab state], but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, realities on the ground in the wake of Arab aggression [and Israel’s survival] became the basis for UN efforts to bring peace.
> 
> 
> Aware of Arab’s past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to:
> 
> “Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [Italics by author]
> 
> 
> The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to adopt the Resolution:
> 
> “The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations. Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack
> and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say.” [Italics by author]
> 
> Arab’s intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted:
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a
> nonbinding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation
> hinged on acceptance by both parties –
> Arabs and Jews.
Click to expand...

Right.

The Jews accepted it and went on to declare Independence on the part they were a majority on, and the Arabs REJECTED  IT.

Again, as in 1937.
Again, as in later plans.

Again, and again and again.

The Arabs favorite word to the Jews is 

NO


----------



## Sixties Fan

In the late 1990s, more than 50 years after Resolution 181 was rejected by the Arab world, Arab leaders suddenly recommended to the General Assembly that UN Resolution 181 be resurrected as the basis for a peace agreement. There is no foundation for such a notion.

Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine. The first was in 1922 when Great Britain unilaterally partitioned Palestine, which did not satisfy the Arabs who wanted the entire country to be Arab. Resolution 181 followed such proposals as the Peel Commission (1937); the Woodhead Commission (1938); two 1946 proposals that championed a binational state; one proposed by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in April 1946 based on a single state with equal powers for Jews and Arabs; and the Morrison- Grady Plan raised in July 1946 which recommended a federal state with two provinces – one Jewish, one Arab. *Every scheme since 1922 was rejected by the Arab side, including decidedly pro-Arab ones merely because these plans recognized Jews as a nation and gave Jewish citizens of Mandate Palestine political representation. *Arabs rejected the “unbalanced” Partition Plan. The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses the term “unbalanced” in describing the reason for Arab rejectionism of Resolution 181, which does not exactly fit reality. Seventy-seven percent of the landmass of the original Mandate for the Jews was excised in 1922 to create a fourth Arab state – Trans-Jordan (today Jordan).

In a statement by Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), he had that to say about fairness, balance, and justice: “According to David Lloyd George, then British Prime Minister, the Balfour Declaration implied that the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, should ultimately become a Jewish state. Transjordan had, nevertheless, been severed from Palestine in 1922 and
had subsequently been set up as an Arab kingdom. Now a second Arab state was to be carved out of the remainder of Palestine, with the result that the Jewish National Home would represent less than one eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. Such a sacrifice should not be asked of the Jewish people.” Referring to the Arab States established as independent countries since the First World War, he said:

“17,000,000 Arabs now occupied an area of 1,290,000 square miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centers, while Palestine, after the loss of Transjordan, was only 10,000 square miles; yet the majority plan proposed to reduce it by one half. UNSCOP proposed to eliminate Western Galilee from the Jewish State; that was an injustice and a grievous handicap to the development of the Jewish State.” [Italics by author].

Following passage of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly, Arab countries took the dais to reiterate their absolute rejection of the recommendation and intention to render implementation of Resolution 181 a moot question by the use of force. These examples from the transcript of the General Assembly plenary meeting on November 29, 1947 speak for themselves:

“Mr. JAMALI (Iraq): ... We believe that the decision which we have now taken ... undermines peace, justice and democracy. In the name of my Government, I wish to state that it feels that this decision is antidemocratic, illegal, impractical and contrary to the Charter ... Therefore, in the name of my Government, I wish to put on record that Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision, will reserve freedom of action towards its implementation, and holds those who were influential in passing it against the free conscience of mankind responsible for the consequences.”

“Amir. ARSLAN [Syria]: ... Gentlemen, the Charter is dead. But it did not die a natural death; it was murdered, and you all know who is guilty. My country will never recognize such a decision [Partition]. It will never agree to be responsible for it. Let the consequences be on the heads of others, not on ours.”

“H. R. H. Prince Seif El ISLAM ABDULLAH (Yemen): The Yemen delegation has stated previously that the partition plan is contrary to justice and to the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, the Government of Yemen does not consider itself bound by such a decision ... and will reserve its freedom of action towards the implementation of this decision.”

The Partition Plan was met not only by verbal rejection on the Arab side but also by concrete, bellicose steps to block its implementation and destroy the Jewish polity by force of arms, a goal the Arabs publicly declared even before Resolution 181 was brought to a vote.

Arabs not only rejected the compromise and took action to prevent establishment of a Jewish state but also blocked establishment of an Arab state under the partition plan not just before the Israel War of Independence, but also after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967).

(full article online)

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf
> 
> The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood [and a parallel Arab state], but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, realities on the ground in the wake of Arab aggression [and Israel’s survival] became the basis for UN efforts to bring peace.
> 
> 
> Aware of Arab’s past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to:
> 
> “Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [Italics by author]
> 
> 
> The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to adopt the Resolution:
> 
> “The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations. Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack
> and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say.” [Italics by author]
> 
> Arab’s intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted:
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a
> nonbinding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation
> hinged on acceptance by both parties –
> Arabs and Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right.
> 
> The Jews accepted it and went on to declare Independence on the part they were a majority on, and the Arabs REJECTED  IT.
> 
> Again, as in 1937.
> Again, as in later plans.
> 
> Again, and again and again.
> 
> The Arabs favorite word to the Jews is
> 
> NO
Click to expand...

You are forgetting what it was that they proposed to partition.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf
> 
> The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood [and a parallel Arab state], but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, realities on the ground in the wake of Arab aggression [and Israel’s survival] became the basis for UN efforts to bring peace.
> 
> 
> Aware of Arab’s past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to:
> 
> “Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [Italics by author]
> 
> They proposed to partition, again....THE JEWISH  HOMELAND, giving the biggest pie to the Arabs.
> The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to adopt the Resolution:
> 
> “The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations. Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack
> and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say.” [Italics by author]
> 
> Arab’s intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted:
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a
> nonbinding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation
> hinged on acceptance by both parties –
> Arabs and Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right.
> 
> The Jews accepted it and went on to declare Independence on the part they were a majority on, and the Arabs REJECTED  IT.
> 
> Again, as in 1937.
> Again, as in later plans.
> 
> Again, and again and again.
> 
> The Arabs favorite word to the Jews is
> 
> NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are forgetting what it was that they proposed to partition.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine.


A "compromise" where only the Palestinians make concessions?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> A "compromise" where only the Palestinians make concessions?
Click to expand...

The Jewish People were the ONLY ONES who were forced to make any concessions, over THEIR ancient homeland.

78% of it was given to the Arab Hashemite clan. (From Arabia)

And then, the other Arabs, and the Hashemite themselves, would not accept a Jewish sovereign state on ( oh, my!!! )  the Jewish ancient homeland.

And your "Palestinians" only recognized themselves as Arabs and Muslims until 1964.

Calling it "Palestine" does not make it the homeland of the "Palestinians", a country and people which never existed before WWI and the Mandates.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> A "compromise" where only the Palestinians make concessions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish People were the ONLY ONES who were forced to make any concessions, over THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> 78% of it was given to the Arab Hashemite clan. (From Arabia)
> 
> And then, the other Arabs, and the Hashemite themselves, would not accept a Jewish sovereign state on ( oh, my!!! )  the Jewish ancient homeland.
> 
> And your "Palestinians" only recognized themselves as Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> 
> Calling it "Palestine" does not make it the homeland of the "Palestinians", a country and people which never existed before WWI and the Mandates.
Click to expand...

Pfffft, Israeli BS talking points.

Link?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> A "compromise" where only the Palestinians make concessions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish People were the ONLY ONES who were forced to make any concessions, over THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> 78% of it was given to the Arab Hashemite clan. (From Arabia)
> 
> And then, the other Arabs, and the Hashemite themselves, would not accept a Jewish sovereign state on ( oh, my!!! )  the Jewish ancient homeland.
> 
> And your "Palestinians" only recognized themselves as Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> 
> Calling it "Palestine" does not make it the homeland of the "Palestinians", a country and people which never existed before WWI and the Mandates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli BS talking points.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Tinmore's endless belief that Jews do not exist and do not have any rights over their ancient homeland.

Christian/Muslim thinking.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> A "compromise" where only the Palestinians make concessions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish People were the ONLY ONES who were forced to make any concessions, over THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> 78% of it was given to the Arab Hashemite clan. (From Arabia)
> 
> And then, the other Arabs, and the Hashemite themselves, would not accept a Jewish sovereign state on ( oh, my!!! )  the Jewish ancient homeland.
> 
> And your "Palestinians" only recognized themselves as Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> 
> Calling it "Palestine" does not make it the homeland of the "Palestinians", a country and people which never existed before WWI and the Mandates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli BS talking points.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore's endless belief that Jews do not exist and do not have any rights over their ancient homeland.
> 
> Christian/Muslim thinking.
Click to expand...

Nice duck. I don't see a link.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> A "compromise" where only the Palestinians make concessions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish People were the ONLY ONES who were forced to make any concessions, over THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> 78% of it was given to the Arab Hashemite clan. (From Arabia)
> 
> And then, the other Arabs, and the Hashemite themselves, would not accept a Jewish sovereign state on ( oh, my!!! )  the Jewish ancient homeland.
> 
> And your "Palestinians" only recognized themselves as Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> 
> Calling it "Palestine" does not make it the homeland of the "Palestinians", a country and people which never existed before WWI and the Mandates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli BS talking points.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore's endless belief that Jews do not exist and do not have any rights over their ancient homeland.
> 
> Christian/Muslim thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck. I don't see a link.
Click to expand...

I do not owe you any.

It is always the same game with you.

Facts do not matter, you always end up your posts with "deflection" and "nice duck", "links".

It is your deceitful way to attempt to delegitimize the Jewish People/nation's right to their own ancient homeland.

It has not worked, it will not work.

You are an ignorant Christian/Muslim who will never accept the rights of the Jewish people to be sovereign over any part of their ancient homeland.

Too bad, because it does not matter one inch to Israel and the Jewish people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "compromise" where only the Palestinians make concessions?
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish People were the ONLY ONES who were forced to make any concessions, over THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> 78% of it was given to the Arab Hashemite clan. (From Arabia)
> 
> And then, the other Arabs, and the Hashemite themselves, would not accept a Jewish sovereign state on ( oh, my!!! )  the Jewish ancient homeland.
> 
> And your "Palestinians" only recognized themselves as Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> 
> Calling it "Palestine" does not make it the homeland of the "Palestinians", a country and people which never existed before WWI and the Mandates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli BS talking points.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore's endless belief that Jews do not exist and do not have any rights over their ancient homeland.
> 
> Christian/Muslim thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck. I don't see a link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not owe you any.
> 
> It is always the same game with you.
> 
> Facts do not matter, you always end up your posts with "deflection" and "nice duck", "links".
> 
> It is your deceitful way to attempt to delegitimize the Jewish People/nation's right to their own ancient homeland.
> 
> It has not worked, it will not work.
> 
> You are an ignorant Christian/Muslim who will never accept the rights of the Jewish people to be sovereign over any part of their ancient homeland.
> 
> Too bad, because it does not matter one inch to Israel and the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

More duck.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish People were the ONLY ONES who were forced to make any concessions, over THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> 78% of it was given to the Arab Hashemite clan. (From Arabia)
> 
> And then, the other Arabs, and the Hashemite themselves, would not accept a Jewish sovereign state on ( oh, my!!! )  the Jewish ancient homeland.
> 
> And your "Palestinians" only recognized themselves as Arabs and Muslims until 1964.
> 
> Calling it "Palestine" does not make it the homeland of the "Palestinians", a country and people which never existed before WWI and the Mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli BS talking points.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore's endless belief that Jews do not exist and do not have any rights over their ancient homeland.
> 
> Christian/Muslim thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck. I don't see a link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not owe you any.
> 
> It is always the same game with you.
> 
> Facts do not matter, you always end up your posts with "deflection" and "nice duck", "links".
> 
> It is your deceitful way to attempt to delegitimize the Jewish People/nation's right to their own ancient homeland.
> 
> It has not worked, it will not work.
> 
> You are an ignorant Christian/Muslim who will never accept the rights of the Jewish people to be sovereign over any part of their ancient homeland.
> 
> Too bad, because it does not matter one inch to Israel and the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More duck.
Click to expand...

You are the duck.
One can hear you quacking in all the threads.

Keep it up, quack, quack.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> A "compromise" where only the Palestinians make concessions?
Click to expand...



That's like saying a compromise where only the Czechoslovaks made concessions when they divided Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.  Stupid argument.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

lngathering and lndependence part 6


----------



## Sixties Fan

How Harry Truman Crossed His Own State Department to Recognize Israel in 1948


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> How Harry Truman Crossed His Own State Department to Recognize Israel in 1948


Indeed, many people were predicting what a disaster it would be to create a Jewish state in Palestine. We have been watching this disaster unfold for 70 years.

But intelligence was shoved aside and stupid took over.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Harry Truman Crossed His Own State Department to Recognize Israel in 1948
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, many people were predicting what a disaster it would be to create a Jewish state in Palestine. We have been watching this disaster unfold for 70 years.
> 
> But intelligence was shoved aside and stupid took over.
Click to expand...

Says the Jew hater who cannot stand that the Jews have won sovereignty on THEIR OWN ANCIENT HOMELAND.

And Bravo Israel for continuing to be the success you have worked  very hard for during the last 70 years, in spite of all of the physical attacks, and worthless "BDS" attacks which only exist against you
by gutless Christian and Muslim Jew haters who want to continue to see Jews as only under their feet.


Am Israel Chai !!!


----------



## Sixties Fan

I Am A Palestinian


----------



## Sixties Fan

Israel Survives Because of an Iron Will and an Iron Wall


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Empire Files: How Palestine Became Colonized*

**


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> *Empire Files: How Palestine Became Colonized*
> 
> **


Nice try.
By all means forget the Mandate, the wars started by the Muslims, the land taken by the Muslims from the Jews, all the Jews who were expelled from their homes, businesses and lands from 1920 to 1948.

Keep playing your fictional games for useful idiots like yourself.

Never mind the 80% of the Jewish homeland the Jews were forced to cede from 1922 to 1948.


----------



## Sixties Fan

This is the real tragedy of the Palestinian Arabs.  Those who left their homes wound up not far from home, in Arab countries which had supported their cause during the war. They were among other Arabs, who spoke the same language, had the same culture, and the same religion.  No refugee population should have had it easier, given that Arabs wound up among their own people.  But  the Arab countries refused to allow normal resettlement, as usually occurs with refugees, instead relegating many refugees to squalid camps, in which their families have lived now for 3 or 4 generations.  Many Palestinians have chosen to  remain in these camps  dreaming  of a return to Israel, clanging old keys from 70 years back, or been threatened if they wanted to leave.  But how can you “return” to a place where you have never lived or even visited? The truth of the matter is that  there may be no more than 25,000 refugees remaining alive from the 1948 war. The rest are descendants -- children, grandchildren even great grandchildren of original refugees, none of whom have been in Israel or left it.

All the refugee populations in the world come under the jurisdiction of a single UN agency, except for  the Palestinians. All other refugees do not pass refugee status on to descendants, only the refugees themselves are counted as such. Only the Palestinians are allowed to count all descendants  as refugees, and many have chosen to live off their collective grievance, rather than move on with their lives.

Sephardic Jews,  more than 800,000 of whom were expelled or encouraged to leave Arab countries in the years after the creation of Israel, provide a far better  and more humane approach for dealing with refugees. Israel absorbed more than 70 per cent of these  refugees (France and the United States took many others) and within a few short years, had moved them out of temporary housing and allowed them to start new lives in Israel.  I know because my father and his 4 brothers and parents left all of their lives and assets behind when they fled from Iraq and they made themselves a new life in Israel.

Today there are 6.6 million Jews in Israel, and 1.8 million Arabs, more than 11 times as many Arabs as resided within the borders of Israel at the end of the fighting in 1949. So much for  the absurd notion of ethnic cleansing.  In essence, Israel’s war of independence resulted in a population exchange, something that is very common during wars or when new nations are created.  20 million Muslims and Hindus moved to new countries when India and Pakistan became nations.

(full article online)

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...o_retire_the_false_palestinian_narrative.html


----------



## admonit

Sixties Fan said:


> The truth of the matter is that  there may be no more than *25,000 refugees* remaining alive from the 1948 war. The rest are descendants -- children, grandchildren even great grandchildren of original refugees, none of whom have been in Israel or left it.


The number actually is even smaller, because part of this people left their homes voluntarily.
But let's consider the definition of refugee:
"A person who has been forced to leave *their country* in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster."
"their country" - what was their country? Israel? But they didn't accept creation of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



Those poor, pitiable Arabs-Moslems. Chased out by the Arab-moslem invaders.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Syria's argument against partition, 1947. Sound familiar? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

*WWI Sykes--Picot Agreement: Post War Goals of Imperialist & Zionist*

**


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *WWI Sykes--Picot Agreement: Post War Goals of Imperialist & Zionist*
> 
> **



The usual whining about Arab-Moslem ineptitude and incompetence.


----------



## Sixties Fan

[  Does this song help explain why the British Government went back on the recreation of the Jewish National Home ? 
Let us also remember that the British Royals consider themselves direct descendants of Adam and Eve.  
Why don't they call the song.......England ? ]



The unofficial 'anthem' of England from the poem written by William Blake.  A tribute to the generations that have gone before us to preserve that 'green and pleasant land' for 'England & St.


----------



## Issa

We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Issa said:


> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.


Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.

I know, you do not care.


----------



## Issa

Sixties Fan said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
> The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.
> 
> I know, you do not care.
Click to expand...

So you telling polish, Russian, american Jews that settled there are more indigenous than those that their ancestors were there forever ? Most Israelis dont even look middle easterners but rather European. No wonder jesus has blue eyes and is pale.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Issa said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
> The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.
> 
> I know, you do not care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you telling polish, Russian, american Jews that settled there are more indigenous than those that their ancestors were there forever ? Most Israelis dont even look middle easterners but rather European. No wonder jesus has blue eyes and is pale.
Click to expand...

I am saying that Jews are from the Land of Israel.  That is where their ancestors came from.

Palestinian Arabs cannot have been in the land of Israel, ancient Canaan forever, because Arabs come from Arabia.

All you need to do is think about it.

Do Arabs who go and live in Russia, America, Poland or the UK,  stop being indigenous to Arabia?

No.

Jews do not stop being indigenous to the Land of Israel because they spent a few decades or centuries outside of their land, either.

That is not how it works.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Issa said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
> The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.
> 
> I know, you do not care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you telling polish, Russian, american Jews that settled there are more indigenous than those that their ancestors were there forever ? Most Israelis dont even look middle easterners but rather European. No wonder jesus has blue eyes and is pale.
Click to expand...

You are on the wrong thread.  
There is one specifically started to discuss who is indigenous to Palestine.  Look it up.


----------



## Issa

Sixties Fan said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
> The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.
> 
> I know, you do not care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you telling polish, Russian, american Jews that settled there are more indigenous than those that their ancestors were there forever ? Most Israelis dont even look middle easterners but rather European. No wonder jesus has blue eyes and is pale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that Jews are from the Land of Israel.  That is where their ancestors came from.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs cannot have been in the land of Israel, ancient Canaan forever, because Arabs come from Arabia.
> 
> All you need to do is think about it.
> 
> Do Arabs who go and live in Russia, America, Poland or the UK,  stop being indigenous to Arabia?
> 
> No.
> 
> Jews do not stop being indigenous to the Land of Israel because they spent a few decades or centuries outside of their land, either.
> 
> That is not how it works.
Click to expand...

Dumbest argument ever. Palestinians were kicked from their land and settlers from Europe and other parts were forced in. It's called genocide and occupation. Only the IS sees other way along Israel....why is that ?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Issa said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
> The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.
> 
> I know, you do not care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you telling polish, Russian, american Jews that settled there are more indigenous than those that their ancestors were there forever ? Most Israelis dont even look middle easterners but rather European. No wonder jesus has blue eyes and is pale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that Jews are from the Land of Israel.  That is where their ancestors came from.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs cannot have been in the land of Israel, ancient Canaan forever, because Arabs come from Arabia.
> 
> All you need to do is think about it.
> 
> Do Arabs who go and live in Russia, America, Poland or the UK,  stop being indigenous to Arabia?
> 
> No.
> 
> Jews do not stop being indigenous to the Land of Israel because they spent a few decades or centuries outside of their land, either.
> 
> That is not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbest argument ever. Palestinians were kicked from their land and settlers from Europe and other parts were forced in. It's called genocide and occupation. Only the IS sees other way along Israel....why is that ?
Click to expand...

Spending any time in Europe did not turn the Jews into Europeans.

It did not turn the Muslims who invaded Europe, Arabs or Turks, into Europeans.

Why is it that only the Jews become Europeans for spending some time on that continent?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> I am saying that Jews are from the Land of Israel.  That is where their ancestors came from.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs cannot have been in the land of Israel, ancient Canaan forever, because Arabs come from Arabia.
> 
> All you need to do is think about it.
> 
> Do Arabs who go and live in Russia, America, Poland or the UK,  stop being indigenous to Arabia?
> 
> No.
> 
> Jews do not stop being indigenous to the Land of Israel because they spent a few decades or centuries outside of their land, either.
> 
> That is not how it works.


Put this in your falafal and sip it.

*"many of today’s Israelis who emigrated from Europe after World War II have little or no genealogical connection to the land."*​


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that Jews are from the Land of Israel.  That is where their ancestors came from.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs cannot have been in the land of Israel, ancient Canaan forever, because Arabs come from Arabia.
> 
> All you need to do is think about it.
> 
> Do Arabs who go and live in Russia, America, Poland or the UK,  stop being indigenous to Arabia?
> 
> No.
> 
> Jews do not stop being indigenous to the Land of Israel because they spent a few decades or centuries outside of their land, either.
> 
> That is not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> Put this in your falafal and sip it.
> 
> *"many of today’s Israelis who emigrated from Europe after World War II have little or no genealogical connection to the land."*​
Click to expand...


Not his field, and even in his field...well 

 I wonder how professor would explain the fact that Jews in Europe were called _"Palestinians among us" _about a century before the Arabs decided to appropriate that identity?


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Not his field, and even in his field...well
> 
> I wonder how professor would explain the fact that Jews in Europe were called _"Palestinians among us" _about a century before the Arabs decided to appropriate that identity?


Palestinian-Arabs are the direct decendents of the Israelites.


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
> The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.
> 
> I know, you do not care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you telling polish, Russian, american Jews that settled there are more indigenous than those that their ancestors were there forever ? Most Israelis dont even look middle easterners but rather European. No wonder jesus has blue eyes and is pale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that Jews are from the Land of Israel.  That is where their ancestors came from.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs cannot have been in the land of Israel, ancient Canaan forever, because Arabs come from Arabia.
> 
> All you need to do is think about it.
> 
> Do Arabs who go and live in Russia, America, Poland or the UK,  stop being indigenous to Arabia?
> 
> No.
> 
> Jews do not stop being indigenous to the Land of Israel because they spent a few decades or centuries outside of their land, either.
> 
> That is not how it works.
Click to expand...


Arabs are people that speak Arabic.  North Africans are called Arabs but they are, in fact, mostly Berbers, indigenous to Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco etc. Arabians are people from Arabia. The Arabs of Palestine are the descendants of the Christians that were living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded.  Many converted to Islam though a good 30% were still Christian before the Jew invasion of Palestine from Europe. Many of the Christians that were living in Palestine before the Muslim invasion were descendants of Jews that converted to Christianity after the birth of Christ and the instatement of Christianity as the state religion of Rome/Byzantium.

The European Jews that invaded Palestine are descendants of Europeans that converted to Judaism. They are not indigenous to the Middle East.

"*Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Indigenous Europe, Not Middle East"

Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Europe, Not Middle East*


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
> The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.
> 
> I know, you do not care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you telling polish, Russian, american Jews that settled there are more indigenous than those that their ancestors were there forever ? Most Israelis dont even look middle easterners but rather European. No wonder jesus has blue eyes and is pale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that Jews are from the Land of Israel.  That is where their ancestors came from.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs cannot have been in the land of Israel, ancient Canaan forever, because Arabs come from Arabia.
> 
> All you need to do is think about it.
> 
> Do Arabs who go and live in Russia, America, Poland or the UK,  stop being indigenous to Arabia?
> 
> No.
> 
> Jews do not stop being indigenous to the Land of Israel because they spent a few decades or centuries outside of their land, either.
> 
> That is not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs are people that speak Arabic.  North Africans are called Arabs but they are, in fact, mostly Berbers, indigenous to Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco etc. Arabians are people from Arabia. The Arabs of Palestine are the descendants of the Christians that were living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded.  Many converted to Islam though a good 30% were still Christian before the Jew invasion of Palestine from Europe. Many of the Christians that were living in Palestine before the Muslim invasion were descendants of Jews that converted to Christianity after the birth of Christ and the instatement of Christianity as the state religion of Rome/Byzantium.
> 
> The European Jews that invaded Palestine are descendants of Europeans that converted to Judaism. They are not indigenous to the Middle East.
> 
> "*Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Indigenous Europe, Not Middle East"
> 
> Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Europe, Not Middle East*
Click to expand...


But then again we have:

*Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture*

*Jews cluster mostly with the Druze and Lebanese Christians while Palestinian Arabs with Saudis, Jordanians and Bedouins* :


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not his field, and even in his field...well
> 
> I wonder how professor would explain the fact that Jews in Europe were called _"Palestinians among us" _about a century before the Arabs decided to appropriate that identity?
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Arabs are the direct decendents of the Israelites.
Click to expand...


Give me a break, they also claim Islam came before Judaism 
Arabs came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews at the time.


----------



## montelatici

The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are basically defending and sponsoring a terrorist of Israel in slaughtering the Palestinians and stealing their land.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are the original indigenous Palestinians.
> The Palestinian Arabs are invaders, like all the other Arabs who invaded all the lands outside of Arabia.
> 
> I know, you do not care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you telling polish, Russian, american Jews that settled there are more indigenous than those that their ancestors were there forever ? Most Israelis dont even look middle easterners but rather European. No wonder jesus has blue eyes and is pale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying that Jews are from the Land of Israel.  That is where their ancestors came from.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs cannot have been in the land of Israel, ancient Canaan forever, because Arabs come from Arabia.
> 
> All you need to do is think about it.
> 
> Do Arabs who go and live in Russia, America, Poland or the UK,  stop being indigenous to Arabia?
> 
> No.
> 
> Jews do not stop being indigenous to the Land of Israel because they spent a few decades or centuries outside of their land, either.
> 
> That is not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs are people that speak Arabic.  North Africans are called Arabs but they are, in fact, mostly Berbers, indigenous to Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco etc. Arabians are people from Arabia. The Arabs of Palestine are the descendants of the Christians that were living in Palestine when the Muslims invaded.  Many converted to Islam though a good 30% were still Christian before the Jew invasion of Palestine from Europe. Many of the Christians that were living in Palestine before the Muslim invasion were descendants of Jews that converted to Christianity after the birth of Christ and the instatement of Christianity as the state religion of Rome/Byzantium.
> 
> The European Jews that invaded Palestine are descendants of Europeans that converted to Judaism. They are not indigenous to the Middle East.
> 
> "*Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Indigenous Europe, Not Middle East"
> 
> Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Europe, Not Middle East*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then again we have:
> 
> *Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture*
> 
> *Jews cluster mostly with the Druze and Lebanese Christians while Palestinian Arabs with Saudis, Jordanians and Bedouins* :
Click to expand...


Thanks for providing additional confirmation, from your link:

 "Ashkenazi Jews are drawn towards the Caucasus and Eastern Europe"


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.



It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.


----------



## Sixties Fan

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
Click to expand...

This is not about Muslims, people who can convert to Islam from being  indigenous from anywhere in the world.

This is about the Arabs, especially those who are not calling themselves Palestinians, and where they are originated from.

All Arabs point to Arabia as the land where their ancestors came from, especially those who came after the Arab invasion in the 7th century.

Monte likes to fool people by using different words.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
Click to expand...


It's been proven through genetics over and over again. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the descendants of the Christians that were in Palestine prior to the Muslim conquest of Palestine from the Romans. And, the Christians were, most of them, descendants of the people that were living in Palestine before the Romans arrived. How can it be any different. 

Yes, Muslims come from as far away as the Phillipines.  What does that have to do with anything, Islam is a religion just as Judaism is.  As I have always told you, an Inuit can be a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been proven through genetics over and over again. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the descendants of the Christians that were in Palestine prior to the Muslim conquest of Palestine from the Romans. And, the Christians were, most of them, descendants of the people that were living in Palestine before the Romans arrived. How can it be any different.
> 
> Yes, Muslims come from as far away as the Phillipines.  What does that have to do with anything, Islam is a religion just as Judaism is.  As I have always told you, an Inuit can be a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian.
Click to expand...


Funny You fail to prove it, but each time I hear the same chest beating.
With You it's the same bs, You read one sentence that, but don't see that the rest of it contradicts Your story.

We can go this way all over again - You provide links and we prove You wrong using just them.
Then You'll claim a great victory and buy a new white hoodie for that club You go to where You discuss blood purity of Jews.


----------



## rylah

Sixties Fan said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not about Muslims, people who can convert to Islam from being  indigenous from anywhere in the world.
> 
> This is about the Arabs, especially those who are not calling themselves Palestinians, and where they are originated from.
> 
> All Arabs point to Arabia as the land where their ancestors came from, especially those who came after the Arab invasion in the 7th century.
> 
> Monte likes to fool people by using different words.
Click to expand...


Monte knows it all. Merely repeating the same number from a year ago. 
Same self contradictory links, we did miles of conversations on each and every of his self contradictory studies. Nothing new.


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not about Muslims, people who can convert to Islam from being  indigenous from anywhere in the world.
> 
> This is about the Arabs, especially those who are not calling themselves Palestinians, and where they are originated from.
> 
> All Arabs point to Arabia as the land where their ancestors came from, especially those who came after the Arab invasion in the 7th century.
> 
> Monte likes to fool people by using different words.
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not about Muslims, people who can convert to Islam from being  indigenous from anywhere in the world.
> 
> This is about the Arabs, especially those who are not calling themselves Palestinians, and where they are originated from.
> 
> All Arabs point to Arabia as the land where their ancestors came from, especially those who came after the Arab invasion in the 7th century.
> 
> Monte likes to fool people by using different words.
Click to expand...


Arabs from North Africa, Arabians, Persians, Russians, Chinese, Pakistani and other Muslims point to Mecca in Arabia.  A Tunisian Arab has less Arabian DNA  than Sephardic Jews. 

The Arabs of Palestine originated in Palestine just as the Arabs of Tunisia originated in Tunisia. Hardly any Arabians went to Palestine outside of a few military officers and governors.  Just like the Turks, they arrived to rule, the Ottomans  didn't move civilian Turks to Palestine after they conquered the area nor did the Crusaders leave much of a genetic mark, they were all conquerors not settler colonists.


*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin*
In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few. Supporting Hogarth, Hitti, and Lewis, the Reverend Parkes found thatDuring the first century after the Arab conquest the caliph and governors of Syria and The Land [Palestine] ruled almost entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the bedouin [nomads], in the earliest days the only Arabs west of the Jordan (not all of whom were themselves Muslims) were the garnisons... "They "were small," and were "decimated" by epidemics within two years after the capture of Jerusalem. 


Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not about Muslims, people who can convert to Islam from being  indigenous from anywhere in the world.
> 
> This is about the Arabs, especially those who are not calling themselves Palestinians, and where they are originated from.
> 
> All Arabs point to Arabia as the land where their ancestors came from, especially those who came after the Arab invasion in the 7th century.
> 
> Monte likes to fool people by using different words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monte knows it all. He's repeating the same number from a year ago. Same self contradictory links, same open and banal racism.
Click to expand...


Nothing is contradictory or racist, they are just the facts.  You people post fantasy and science fiction.  That's what gets you Zionist propagandists so riled up, the facts expose you as propagandists posting lies.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not about Muslims, people who can convert to Islam from being  indigenous from anywhere in the world.
> 
> This is about the Arabs, especially those who are not calling themselves Palestinians, and where they are originated from.
> 
> All Arabs point to Arabia as the land where their ancestors came from, especially those who came after the Arab invasion in the 7th century.
> 
> Monte likes to fool people by using different words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not about Muslims, people who can convert to Islam from being  indigenous from anywhere in the world.
> 
> This is about the Arabs, especially those who are not calling themselves Palestinians, and where they are originated from.
> 
> All Arabs point to Arabia as the land where their ancestors came from, especially those who came after the Arab invasion in the 7th century.
> 
> Monte likes to fool people by using different words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs from North Africa, Arabians, Persians, Russians, Chinese, Pakistani and other Muslims point to Mecca in Arabia.  A Tunisian Arab has less Arabian DNA  than Sephardic Jews.
> 
> The Arabs of Palestine originated in Palestine just as the Arabs of Tunisia originated in Tunisia. Hardly any Arabians went to Palestine outside of a few military officers and governors.  Just like the Turks, they arrived to rule, the Ottomans  didn't move civilian Turks to Palestine after they conquered the area nor did the Crusaders leave much of a genetic mark, they were all conquerors not settler colonists.
> 
> 
> *Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin*
> In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few. Supporting Hogarth, Hitti, and Lewis, the Reverend Parkes found thatDuring the first century after the Arab conquest the caliph and governors of Syria and The Land [Palestine] ruled almost entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the bedouin [nomads], in the earliest days the only Arabs west of the Jordan (not all of whom were themselves Muslims) were the garnisons... "They "were small," and were "decimated" by epidemics within two years after the capture of Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims of Palestine are descendants of the Christians of Palestine that converted in large numbers to Islam. Both are descendants of the people that practiced earlier religions in the area, Roman religions, Samaritanism, Judaism etc. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a story You keep telling Yourself, but never able to prove.
> But according to Your links-  Muslims came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not about Muslims, people who can convert to Islam from being  indigenous from anywhere in the world.
> 
> This is about the Arabs, especially those who are not calling themselves Palestinians, and where they are originated from.
> 
> All Arabs point to Arabia as the land where their ancestors came from, especially those who came after the Arab invasion in the 7th century.
> 
> Monte likes to fool people by using different words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monte knows it all. He's repeating the same number from a year ago. Same self contradictory links, same open and banal racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is contradictory or racist, they are just the facts.  You people post fantasy and science fiction.  That's what gets you Zionist propagandists so riled up, the facts expose you as propagandists posting lies.
Click to expand...


You know these links contradict what You say and You still post them.
_"Nothing is contradictory or racist, they are just the facts.  You people post fantasy and science fiction." _

*From Your link:*

Look at the list of languages just among the Muslims in 1931:
Afghan
Albanian
Arabic
Bosnian
Chinese
Circassian
English
French
German
Greek
Gypsy
Hebrew
Hindustani
Indian dialects
Javanese
Kurdish
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Sudanese
Takrurian
Turkish

Clearly the Christians and Muslims themselves are migrants from virtually every country in the world. Those You call Palestinian Arabs.
But let a Jew speak Russian or even Hebrew... anything BUT Arabic and he's a 'foreigner'.
*
Q.When did Arabic ever cease to be the language of invaders?*


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Give me a break, they also claim Islam came before Judaism
> Arabs came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews at the time.


Palestinian-Arabs and Palestinian-Jews are the people who never left the area.  They have been living there for 2000 years.  Zionists, on the other hand, just moved into the area at the turn of the last century and brought with them all the violence and racism we see today.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, they also claim Islam came before Judaism
> Arabs came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Arabs and Palestinian-Jews are the people who never left the area.  They have been living there for 2000 years.  Zionists, on the other hand, just moved into the area at the turn of the last century and brought with them all the violence and racism we see today.
Click to expand...


There was violence long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.
The society in Syria-Palestine was widely divided, sectarian and full of violence.
The first tools used to create an international Jewish political movement, were created as a response to Arab Pogroms against their Jewish neighbors. 

*Damascus affair*
The incident and its repercussions were considerable. According to Hasia R. Diner, in _The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000_, "For the Jews, the Damascus affair launched modern Jewish politics on an international scale, and for American Jews it represented their first effort at creating a distinctive political agenda. Just as the United States had used this affair to proclaim its presence on the global scale, so too did American Jews, in their newspapers and at mass meetings, announce to their coreligionists in France and England that they too ought to be thought of players in global Jewish diplomacy."[8]

According to Johannes Valentin Schwarz, the events also encouraged the growth of the modern Jewish press. "As a result, a sense of solidarity was evoked among the Jewish communities of Europe they had never experienced before. Thus, the Damascus Affair gave birth to modern Jewish press especially in Western Europe, such as to the long-lived papers _Les Archives Israélites de France_ (1840-1935) in Paris or _The Jewish Chronicle_ (1841 ff.) in London."[9]


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> There was violence long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.
> The society in Syria-Palestine was widely divided, sectarian and full of violence.
> The first tools used to create an international Jewish political movement, were created as a response to Arab Pogroms against their Jewish neighbors.
> 
> *Damascus affair*
> The incident and its repercussions were considerable. According to Hasia R. Diner, in _The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000_, "For the Jews, the Damascus affair launched modern Jewish politics on an international scale, and for American Jews it represented their first effort at creating a distinctive political agenda. Just as the United States had used this affair to proclaim its presence on the global scale, so too did American Jews, in their newspapers and at mass meetings, announce to their coreligionists in France and England that they too ought to be thought of players in global Jewish diplomacy."[8]
> 
> According to Johannes Valentin Schwarz, the events also encouraged the growth of the modern Jewish press. "As a result, a sense of solidarity was evoked among the Jewish communities of Europe they had never experienced before. Thus, the Damascus Affair gave birth to modern Jewish press especially in Western Europe, such as to the long-lived papers _Les Archives Israélites de France_ (1840-1935) in Paris or _The Jewish Chronicle_ (1841 ff.) in London."[9]


That is a Zionist myth.

*Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.*
_Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, *Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors.* This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying *British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious*.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land._​


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, they also claim Islam came before Judaism
> Arabs came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Arabs and Palestinian-Jews are the people who never left the area.  They have been living there for 2000 years.  Zionists, on the other hand, just moved into the area at the turn of the last century and brought with them all the violence and racism we see today.
Click to expand...


And BOTH Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians should have States on that territory, and yes, that includes all of the Arab Palestinians who migrated to the territory over time AND all the Jewish Palestinians who returned and migrated to the territory over time.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> And BOTH Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians should have States on that territory, and yes, that includes all of the Arab Palestinians who migrated to the territory over time AND all the Jewish Palestinians who returned and migrated to the territory over time.


Indigenous Palestinians have rights.  You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was violence long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.
> The society in Syria-Palestine was widely divided, sectarian and full of violence.
> The first tools used to create an international Jewish political movement, were created as a response to Arab Pogroms against their Jewish neighbors.
> 
> *Damascus affair*
> The incident and its repercussions were considerable. According to Hasia R. Diner, in _The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000_, "For the Jews, the Damascus affair launched modern Jewish politics on an international scale, and for American Jews it represented their first effort at creating a distinctive political agenda. Just as the United States had used this affair to proclaim its presence on the global scale, so too did American Jews, in their newspapers and at mass meetings, announce to their coreligionists in France and England that they too ought to be thought of players in global Jewish diplomacy."[8]
> 
> According to Johannes Valentin Schwarz, the events also encouraged the growth of the modern Jewish press. "As a result, a sense of solidarity was evoked among the Jewish communities of Europe they had never experienced before. Thus, the Damascus Affair gave birth to modern Jewish press especially in Western Europe, such as to the long-lived papers _Les Archives Israélites de France_ (1840-1935) in Paris or _The Jewish Chronicle_ (1841 ff.) in London."[9]
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Zionist myth.
> 
> *Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.*
> _Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, *Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors.* This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.
> 
> For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying *British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious*.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land._​
Click to expand...


*Arabs massacred their Jewish neighbors in Palestine long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.*

Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:

_"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
*On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_

Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873

*Q. Harmony much?*


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> *Arabs massacred their Jewish neighbors in Palestine long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.*
> 
> Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> *Q. Harmony much?*


And nothing for almost a 100 years after that, until Zionists showed up with their violence and racism.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And BOTH Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians should have States on that territory, and yes, that includes all of the Arab Palestinians who migrated to the territory over time AND all the Jewish Palestinians who returned and migrated to the territory over time.
> 
> 
> 
> Indigenous Palestinians have rights.  You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.
Click to expand...


The Jewish people were living there.  Have been for thousands and thousands of years.  Longer than any other identifiable people.  The Jewish people who were living there have every right to part of that territory.  And those removed and returning have every right as well.  

The ENTIRE Arab Palestinian position depends on those two points.  You can't support it for the Arabs and not support it for the Jews.  Unless, you know....


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Arabs massacred their Jewish neighbors in Palestine long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.*
> 
> Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> *Q. Harmony much?*
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing for almost a 100 years after that, until Zionists showed up with their violence and racism.
Click to expand...


This is 46 years before the 1st Zionist immigration,
another Arab Pogrom against Jews of Sefad happened 3 years later.

Apparently Arabs didn't think Jews would rise arms against this Disneyland.
Just to think that they themselves gave push to Zionism and even helped Britain invade the land...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, they also claim Islam came before Judaism
> Arabs came from a much wider variety of countries than Jews at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Arabs and Palestinian-Jews are the people who never left the area.  They have been living there for 2000 years.  Zionists, on the other hand, just moved into the area at the turn of the last century and brought with them all the violence and racism we see today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BOTH Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians should have States on that territory, and yes, that includes all of the Arab Palestinians who migrated to the territory over time AND all the Jewish Palestinians who returned and migrated to the territory over time.
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> And BOTH Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians should have States on that territory,


But they did not want to be separated.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And BOTH Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians should have States on that territory, and yes, that includes all of the Arab Palestinians who migrated to the territory over time AND all the Jewish Palestinians who returned and migrated to the territory over time.
> 
> 
> 
> Indigenous Palestinians have rights.  You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people were living there.  Have been for thousands and thousands of years.  Longer than any other identifiable people.  The Jewish people who were living there have every right to part of that territory.  And those removed and returning have every right as well.
> 
> The ENTIRE Arab Palestinian position depends on those two points.  You can't support it for the Arabs and not support it for the Jews.  Unless, you know....
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> The Jewish people were living there. Have been for thousands and thousands of years. Longer than any other identifiable people.


And it worked for everybody.

Then the Zionists came and fucked everything up.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> But they did not want to be separated.



I don't believe you.  They do now.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> And it worked for everybody.



Not true. Most of those “everybody's” were relegated to dhimmi status in accordance with the ideals of Islamic fascism.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> And it worked for everybody.
> 
> Then the Zionists came and fucked everything up.



Ah.  The Jews-are-good-but-Zionists-are-evil trope.  Let's just unpack that, shall we?

Recalling the meaning of the word "Zionist" as a person calling for the return of the Jewish people to their historical, ancestral and religious homeland and entitled to rights of sovereignty there....

Jews are good.  Jews are non-violent.  There is no conflict between Arabs and Jews.  BECAUSE Jews voluntarily self-restrict their own rights by denying any historical, ancestral or religious attachment to their own homeland especially any claim to rights of sovereignty there.  Jews are content to live as a minority, to be unequal in the law, to be dhimmis, to be slaughtered only occasionally, and treated mostly better in comparison to historical Christian pogroms and genocides.  Jews acknowledge that they have no rights to self-determination or self-governance.  

Zionists, on the other hand, are evil. They cause trouble. They are the source of the conflict.  The mere presence of Zionists is problematic.  They assert their rights to equality, to life, to a history and a religious faith and yes, to sovereignty, in the land of their fathers and mothers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it worked for everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Most of those “everybody's” were relegated to dhimmi status in accordance with the ideals of Islamic fascism.
Click to expand...

More bullshit. The dhimmi status was eliminated in the middle of the 19th century.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it worked for everybody.
> 
> Then the Zionists came and fucked everything up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  The Jews-are-good-but-Zionists-are-evil trope.  Let's just unpack that, shall we?
> 
> Recalling the meaning of the word "Zionist" as a person calling for the return of the Jewish people to their historical, ancestral and religious homeland and entitled to rights of sovereignty there....
> 
> Jews are good.  Jews are non-violent.  There is no conflict between Arabs and Jews.  BECAUSE Jews voluntarily self-restrict their own rights by denying any historical, ancestral or religious attachment to their own homeland especially any claim to rights of sovereignty there.  Jews are content to live as a minority, to be unequal in the law, to be dhimmis, to be slaughtered only occasionally, and treated mostly better in comparison to historical Christian pogroms and genocides.  Jews acknowledge that they have no rights to self-determination or self-governance.
> 
> Zionists, on the other hand, are evil. They cause trouble. They are the source of the conflict.  The mere presence of Zionists is problematic.  They assert their rights to equality, to life, to a history and a religious faith and yes, to sovereignty, in the land of their fathers and mothers.
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> Recalling the meaning of the word "Zionist" as a person calling for the return of the Jewish people...


Political Zionism was a settler colonial project.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it worked for everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Most of those “everybody's” were relegated to dhimmi status in accordance with the ideals of Islamic fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. The dhimmi status was eliminated in the middle of the 19th century.
Click to expand...


I can see you’re angry about the facts but the facts are that the Islamic settler colonial project represented by the Ottoman Turks enforced the dhimmi status on non-Islamics.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Political Zionism was a settler colonial project.



You can't colonize your own homeland.  Zionism is, and always has been, the desire to return to ancestral and historical homeland. 

Somehow I think if I differentiated the Arab Palestinians who remain in Israel/Palestine and the Arab Palestinians in the diaspora and weighted them as "good" and "evil", you'd find that problematic.  We could try it.  I just have to come up with a good label for the diaspora Arab Palestinians.  Maybe I'll just call them Europeans like you do.


----------



## montelatici

Palestine was the homeland of the people who lived there before it was colonized by the Europeans, who happened to be of the Jewish faith.  The fact that a bunch of European converts to Judaism decided that Palestine was their homeland, doesn't it make it so.  And, it gave them no right to expel the Muslims and Christian from their homeland.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Palestine was the homeland of the people who lived there before it was colonized by the Europeans, who happened to be of the Jewish faith.  The fact that a bunch of European converts to Judaism decided that Palestine was their homeland, doesn't it make it so.  And, it gave them no right to expel the Muslims and Christian from their homeland.



The geographic area of Palestine was an Islamist settler colonial project of the Ottoman Turks. The collapse of that settler colonial project was finalized at the end of WW1. 

Subsequently, the Jewish National Home was established.

Whine about that all you wish.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was the homeland of the people who lived there before it was colonized by the Europeans, who happened to be of the Jewish faith.  The fact that a bunch of European converts to Judaism decided that Palestine was their homeland, doesn't it make it so.  And, it gave them no right to expel the Muslims and Christian from their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The geographic area of Palestine was an Islamist settler colonial project of the Ottoman Turks. The collapse of that settler colonial project was finalized at the end of WW1.
> 
> Subsequently, the Jewish National Home was established.
> 
> Whine about that all you wish.
Click to expand...

THE Ottoman Turks threw people out of their homes and moved their own people in?


----------



## Sixties Fan

How we really became refugees 13 Palestinians tell their personal stories


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Flop and his 24/7 fake news and propaganda show,


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was the homeland of the people who lived there before it was colonized by the Europeans, who happened to be of the Jewish faith.  The fact that a bunch of European converts to Judaism decided that Palestine was their homeland, doesn't it make it so.  And, it gave them no right to expel the Muslims and Christian from their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The geographic area of Palestine was an Islamist settler colonial project of the Ottoman Turks. The collapse of that settler colonial project was finalized at the end of WW1.
> 
> Subsequently, the Jewish National Home was established.
> 
> Whine about that all you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THE Ottoman Turks threw people out of their homes and moved their own people in?
Click to expand...


Look it up. 1517.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> The Jewish people were living there.  Have been for thousands and thousands of years.  Longer than any other identifiable people.  The Jewish people who were living there have every right to part of that territory.  And those removed and returning have every right as well.
> 
> The ENTIRE Arab Palestinian position depends on those two points.  You can't support it for the Arabs and not support it for the Jews.  Unless, you know....


Arabs have been living there just as long as Jews have.  At the time of the Zionist migration, Arabs were the majority population and majority land owners.  Jewish terrorist groups like Irgun, forcibly drove out 750,000 of them.  Those indigenous Palestinians have the right to return as well.  

If you have the right to return, so do they.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> This is 46 years before the 1st Zionist immigration,
> another Arab Pogrom against Jews of Sefad happened 3 years later.
> 
> Apparently Arabs didn't think Jews would rise arms against this Disneyland.
> Just to think that they themselves gave push to Zionism and even helped Britain invade the land...


You got that ass-backwards.  Zionists migrated in with their racist, apartheid policies.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Arabs have been living there just as long as Jews have.



Seriously?  Please document the earliest known Arab artifact from the place.  I'll compare it with the earliest known Jewish one.  Good luck with that. 



> If you have the right to return, so do they.



Yeah.  I'M the one arguing that they BOTH have rights to return.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Palestine was the homeland of the people who lived there before it was colonized ....



Yep.


----------



## JakeStarkey

When Palis love their children more than the love death, the violence will end.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs have been living there just as long as Jews have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Please document the earliest known Arab artifact from the place.  I'll compare it with the earliest known Jewish one.  Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the right to return, so do they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I'M the one arguing that they BOTH have rights to return.
Click to expand...

Sure you do. As long as the Palestinians don't return to their homes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There is no right of return.

There was no right of return.

There will never be a right of return.

Jerusalem is Jewish and always will be.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Seriously?  Please document the earliest known Arab artifact from the place.  I'll compare it with the earliest known Jewish one.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Yeah.  I'M the one arguing that they BOTH have rights to return.


From the Balfour Declaration...

_His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, *it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine* or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'_
Nothing will be done to prejudice the existing non-Jewish communities.

Do you know what "existing" means.

From a famous Zionist humanist...

_"... Ahad Ha'am warned that the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. *They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...'*_
Enter Susha and her empathy brigade.


----------



## Billo_Really

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no right of return.
> 
> There was no right of return.
> 
> There will never be a right of return.
> 
> Jerusalem is Jewish and always will be.


Not according to the rest of the planet.


----------



## Billo_Really

JakeStarkey said:


> When Palis love their children more than the love death, the violence will end.


The Pals love their kids just like any other parents.

Why do Israeli's shit on the memory of Holocaust victims?


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Yep.


And the majority of those people were Arab.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Yep.


Never let it be said I never gave you anything, so here it is.

If you want a country...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Billo_Really said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right of return.
> 
> There was no right of return.
> 
> There will never be a right of return.
> 
> Jerusalem is Jewish and always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the rest of the planet.
Click to expand...

The rest of the planet is not all on your side.

Israel will remain.  If the Arabs overrun Israel, their major cities from Medina and Mecca to Damascus and Tehran et al will die in nuclear fire.

Either Israel lives, or the Middle East dies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Billo_Really said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Palis love their children more than the love death, the violence will end.
> 
> 
> 
> The Pals love their kids just like any other parents.  Why do Israeli's shit on the memory of Holocaust victims?
Click to expand...

The Palis clearly do not love their children as much as death.  Your second statement is shit.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs have been living there just as long as Jews have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Please document the earliest known Arab artifact from the place.  I'll compare it with the earliest known Jewish one.  Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the right to return, so do they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I'M the one arguing that they BOTH have rights to return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you do. As long as the Palestinians don't return to their homes.
Click to expand...


Not at all. I fully support the return of individuals to their actual homes where practicable, and to the general vicinity where it is not.  The descendants, however, have only the right to return to generally to their nation of origin.  And even that depends on particular context.  BUT I apply those rules equally and objectively to both parties.


----------



## Slyhunter

Leave the land of the Israelites to the Jews.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Please document the earliest known Arab artifact from the place.  I'll compare it with the earliest known Jewish one.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Yeah.  I'M the one arguing that they BOTH have rights to return.
> 
> 
> 
> From the Balfour Declaration...
> 
> _His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, *it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine* or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'_
> Nothing will be done to prejudice the existing non-Jewish communities.
> 
> Do you know what "existing" means.
> 
> From a famous Zionist humanist...
> 
> _"... Ahad Ha'am warned that the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. *They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...'*_
> Enter Susha and her empathy brigade.
Click to expand...



Do you know what "civil" and "religious" rights mean?   

Again, I'm arguing for the rights of both people.  Equally.  You are not.  


How's that ancient 3000 year old Arab artifact coming along?  Need more time?


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> Never let it be said I never gave you anything, so here it is.
> 
> If you want a country...
Click to expand...



We have a country.  So that message must be for the Arab Palestinians.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> And the majority of those people were Arab.
Click to expand...


So only majorities get to have rights and self-determination and nations?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is 46 years before the 1st Zionist immigration,
> another Arab Pogrom against Jews of Sefad happened 3 years later.
> 
> Apparently Arabs didn't think Jews would rise arms against this Disneyland.
> Just to think that they themselves gave push to Zionism and even helped Britain invade the land...
> 
> 
> 
> You got that ass-backwards.  Zionists migrated in with their racist, apartheid policies.
Click to expand...


You can't do simple math, or prove any of those delusions without succumbing to compulsive lying and call me backwards?

Fact is - the first political tools of Zionism were created as a response to Arab pogroms against their Jewish neighbors in Syria-Palestine. Then Arabs helped Britain invade... now they whine and blame it all on the Jews.

Palestinian mentality.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Please document the earliest known Arab artifact from the place.  I'll compare it with the earliest known Jewish one.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Yeah.  I'M the one arguing that they BOTH have rights to return.
> 
> 
> 
> From the Balfour Declaration...
> 
> _His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, *it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine* or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'_
> Nothing will be done to prejudice the existing non-Jewish communities.
> 
> Do you know what "existing" means.
> 
> From a famous Zionist humanist...
> 
> _"... Ahad Ha'am warned that the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. *They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...'*_
> Enter Susha and her empathy brigade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what "civil" and "religious" rights mean?
> 
> Again, I'm arguing for the rights of both people.  Equally.  You are not.
> 
> 
> How's that ancient 3000 year old Arab artifact coming along?  Need more time?
Click to expand...


Arab is a linguistic denomination.  A Moroccan can be an Arab though ethnically a Berber. The Palestinians are decendants of the people that have always lived in the area and through the ages converted to various religions.  Canaanites, Arameans and yes, Jews, Samaritans and others are all ancestors of the Palestinians but not of the European Jews.

"A rare cache of gold and silver items dated to 3,600 years ago were found in Gezer – and figurines of the Canaanite counterparts for Ishtar, goddess of love, and Sin, god of the moon. The gods and money were found inside a clay vessel within the foundations of a building, leading to the theory that the pot was placed there as an offering to the gods to bless the building."

And, an Aramean dedication found in Abel Beth Maacah.


----------



## Shusha

Arabs are not Canaanites. Arab culture originated elsewhere and was imported (invasion and conquest). It would be inaccurate to claim that Arabs have been there as long as the Jewish people. Arabs in Israel/Palestine are a mixture of thousands of years of migration and conquest. 

Some may very well have been there since ancient times but if so they are formerly people of Jewish ethnicity whose culture was replaced with that of invading cultures. 

If you equate Arab with Caananites you are stripping Arabs of everything that makes them Arab. As you correctly point out "Arab" is a linguistic and cultural term. It describes a culture which originated outside the territory in question and not one which indigenous. That is how indigenous is measured. 

Just so, a person who carries with them Jewish culture remains Jewish no matter where that person currently resides. Or how long they reside there.  That Jewishness is passed down generationally through the culture. Being Jewish does not depend on holding a residence on a particular territory. It does depend on the maintenance and transference of the culture. And Jewishness can easily be identified by the possession of that culture. The place where Jewish culture originated is in Israel around 3000 years ago. Every Jew has ties to that original culture. 

However, this does not hold true for Arab Palestinians. There is no way to culturally differentiate between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians. And in some aspects the culture is broadly similar over an even wider area. Certainly, in terms of language and religion which are two of the most common markers. (And yes, I realize there are linguistic differences as well as other specific cultural differences between different Arab nations). 

The same thing is largely happening in the US and Canada. I am Scots/Irish and German. I know this not because of my culture but because we have evidence of where my direct ancestors came from. But sit me down at a dinner table in Canada with my husband (British) and my friends (Norwegian, Indian, Mexican and Spanish) and culturally you would not be able to tell one from the other. We've all been assimilated to a large degree. 

That said, the fact that Arab culture is not indigenous to Israel/Palestine in no way compromises Arab Palestinian claim to the territory.  But neither does a large diaspora compromise Jewish claim. 


Please don't bother posting any more Khazar nonsense or trying to claim that white Jews aren't really Jews. I've seen it all a dozen times from you. And it misses the point. Which is that the culture is the marker for belonging to a group.


----------



## Billo_Really

JakeStarkey said:


> The rest of the planet is not all on your side.
> 
> Israel will remain.  If the Arabs overrun Israel, their major cities from Medina and Mecca to Damascus and Tehran et al will die in nuclear fire.
> 
> Either Israel lives, or the Middle East dies.


You're funny!


----------



## Billo_Really

JakeStarkey said:


> The Palis clearly do not love their children as much as death.  Your second statement is shit.


Your first statement is shit.  As for my second, international law was created, in part, as a way to prevent another Holocaust.  So by thumbing your nose at international law, you are, in effect, shitting on all those whose lives were taken in WWII.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Do you know what "civil" and "religious" rights mean?
> 
> Again, I'm arguing for the rights of both people.  Equally.  You are not.
> 
> 
> How's that ancient 3000 year old Arab artifact coming along?  Need more time?


You cannot be_ for_ the occupation and _for _the rights of both people.  The occupation takes away the rights of one side.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> So only majorities get to have rights and self-determination and nations?


Stop being so obtuse.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> You can't do simple math, or prove any of those delusions without succumbing to compulsive lying and call me backwards?
> 
> Fact is - the first political tools of Zionism were created as a response to Arab pogroms against their Jewish neighbors in Syria-Palestine. Then Arabs helped Britain invade... now they whine and blame it all on the Jews.
> 
> Palestinian mentality.


Are you saying there was no Zionist migration?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Arabs are not Canaanites. Arab culture originated elsewhere and was imported (invasion and conquest). It would be inaccurate to claim that Arabs have been there as long as the Jewish people. Arabs in Israel/Palestine are a mixture of thousands of years of migration and conquest.
> 
> Some may very well have been there since ancient times but if so they are formerly people of Jewish ethnicity whose culture was replaced with that of invading cultures.
> 
> If you equate Arab with Caananites you are stripping Arabs of everything that makes them Arab. As you correctly point out "Arab" is a linguistic and cultural term. It describes a culture which originated outside the territory in question and not one which indigenous. That is how indigenous is measured.
> 
> Just so, a person who carries with them Jewish culture remains Jewish no matter where that person currently resides. Or how long they reside there.  That Jewishness is passed down generationally through the culture. Being Jewish does not depend on holding a residence on a particular territory. It does depend on the maintenance and transference of the culture. And Jewishness can easily be identified by the possession of that culture. The place where Jewish culture originated is in Israel around 3000 years ago. Every Jew has ties to that original culture.
> 
> However, this does not hold true for Arab Palestinians. There is no way to culturally differentiate between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians. And in some aspects the culture is broadly similar over an even wider area. Certainly, in terms of language and religion which are two of the most common markers. (And yes, I realize there are linguistic differences as well as other specific cultural differences between different Arab nations).
> 
> The same thing is largely happening in the US and Canada. I am Scots/Irish and German. I know this not because of my culture but because we have evidence of where my direct ancestors came from. But sit me down at a dinner table in Canada with my husband (British) and my friends (Norwegian, Indian, Mexican and Spanish) and culturally you would not be able to tell one from the other. We've all been assimilated to a large degree.
> 
> That said, the fact that Arab culture is not indigenous to Israel/Palestine in no way compromises Arab Palestinian claim to the territory.  But neither does a large diaspora compromise Jewish claim.
> 
> 
> Please don't bother posting any more Khazar nonsense or trying to claim that white Jews aren't really Jews. I've seen it all a dozen times from you. And it misses the point. Which is that the culture is the marker for belonging to a group.



Arabs are people that have adopted the language and culture of the Arabians. Mexicans identify as Hispanics because they speak Spanish and have adopted the Spanish culture, but they certainly are not Spaniards. And, recognizing that they are also Indio, does nothing to harm their heritage. Just as recognizing that the ancestors of the Arab speaking people in Palestine were Caananites (and Edomites and others) does nothing to harm their Arab heritage.  Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians are just as  different between each other as are  Peruvians, Argentines and Mexicans.  So your dog won't hunt. 

I have never brought up anything to do with Khazar.  The European Jews are converts to Judaism and have little to know ancestral ties to Palestine.  The Europeans are simply invaders that expelled a large part of the indigenous population, who happened to have descended from the various indigenous people of the area, Jews included, that eventually converted to Christianity and subsequently a great number to Islam.

"A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim—who make up roughly 80% of the world’s Jews, including 90% of those in America and half of those in Israel—ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe, perhaps Italy."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Jewish people and their state will remain, Billo, long after you and I are in the cemetery.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs are not Canaanites. Arab culture originated elsewhere and was imported (invasion and conquest). It would be inaccurate to claim that Arabs have been there as long as the Jewish people. Arabs in Israel/Palestine are a mixture of thousands of years of migration and conquest.
> 
> Some may very well have been there since ancient times but if so they are formerly people of Jewish ethnicity whose culture was replaced with that of invading cultures.
> 
> If you equate Arab with Caananites you are stripping Arabs of everything that makes them Arab. As you correctly point out "Arab" is a linguistic and cultural term. It describes a culture which originated outside the territory in question and not one which indigenous. That is how indigenous is measured.
> 
> Just so, a person who carries with them Jewish culture remains Jewish no matter where that person currently resides. Or how long they reside there.  That Jewishness is passed down generationally through the culture. Being Jewish does not depend on holding a residence on a particular territory. It does depend on the maintenance and transference of the culture. And Jewishness can easily be identified by the possession of that culture. The place where Jewish culture originated is in Israel around 3000 years ago. Every Jew has ties to that original culture.
> 
> However, this does not hold true for Arab Palestinians. There is no way to culturally differentiate between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians. And in some aspects the culture is broadly similar over an even wider area. Certainly, in terms of language and religion which are two of the most common markers. (And yes, I realize there are linguistic differences as well as other specific cultural differences between different Arab nations).
> 
> The same thing is largely happening in the US and Canada. I am Scots/Irish and German. I know this not because of my culture but because we have evidence of where my direct ancestors came from. But sit me down at a dinner table in Canada with my husband (British) and my friends (Norwegian, Indian, Mexican and Spanish) and culturally you would not be able to tell one from the other. We've all been assimilated to a large degree.
> 
> That said, the fact that Arab culture is not indigenous to Israel/Palestine in no way compromises Arab Palestinian claim to the territory.  But neither does a large diaspora compromise Jewish claim.
> 
> 
> Please don't bother posting any more Khazar nonsense or trying to claim that white Jews aren't really Jews. I've seen it all a dozen times from you. And it misses the point. Which is that the culture is the marker for belonging to a group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs are people that have adopted the language and culture of the Arabians. Mexicans identify as Hispanics because they speak Spanish and have adopted the Spanish culture, but they certainly are not Spaniards. And, recognizing that they are also Indio, does nothing to harm their heritage. Just as recognizing that the ancestors of the Arab speaking people in Palestine were Caananites (and Edomites and others) does nothing to harm their Arab heritage.  Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians are just as  different between each other as are  Peruvians, Argentines and Mexicans.  So your dog won't hunt.
> 
> I have never brought up anything to do with Khazar.  The European Jews are converts to Judaism and have little to know ancestral ties to Palestine.  The Europeans are simply invaders that expelled a large part of the indigenous population, who happened to have descended from the various indigenous people of the area, Jews included, that eventually converted to Christianity and subsequently a great number to Islam.
> 
> "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim—who make up roughly 80% of the world’s Jews, including 90% of those in America and half of those in Israel—ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe, perhaps Italy."
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy
Click to expand...

Why not write a complaint letter to Jeezus?


----------



## montelatici

JakeStarkey said:


> The Jewish people and their state will remain, Billo, long after you and I are in the cemetery.



Why would the Jewish people not remain?  Now, a Jewish state is another matter. It will eventually become a secular state with no particular religion favored.  Apartheid states seem to have a short shelf-life.


----------



## JakeStarkey

montelatici said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people and their state will remain, Billo, long after you and I are in the cemetery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Jewish people not remain?  Now, a Jewish state is another matter. It will eventually become a secular state with no particular religion favored.  Apartheid states seem to have a short shelf-life.
Click to expand...

There is no apartheid state is the point.

The Jewish state will simply say that Gaza and the PLA are not their concern, cede the territory to the UN, and secure her borders.


----------



## montelatici

JakeStarkey said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people and their state will remain, Billo, long after you and I are in the cemetery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Jewish people not remain?  Now, a Jewish state is another matter. It will eventually become a secular state with no particular religion favored.  Apartheid states seem to have a short shelf-life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no apartheid state is the point.
> 
> The Jewish state will simply say that Gaza and the PLA are not their concern, cede the territory to the UN, and secure her borders.
Click to expand...


Of course Israel is an Apartheid state.  The Jews are, like the whites in Rhodesia and South Africa, separated from the non-Jews, either through different laws for Jews and/or through the pseudo-Bantustans created to house the non-Jews that are completely controlled by the Jews.  

Israel could have ceded territory but it hasn't because it will never relinquish control of Gaza's air space, borders and territorial sea and will never relinquish complete control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  So it is and will remain an Apartheid state until it becomes to difficult to control the growing majority of non-Jews under Jewish rule.  Much like what happened to the Eurpeans in Rhodesia and South Africa.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Israel, of course, is not such a state.

The fallacy of false equivalency used by montelatici is risible.

The Chief Justice of Israel is an Arab, as are many in the LEO and the military and the legislature and in the courts and in the schools.

When the militants in Gaza and the PLA stop terrorism against Israel, once they love their children move than death, then peace can come to Gaza and PLA.  That is up to them.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what "civil" and "religious" rights mean?
> 
> Again, I'm arguing for the rights of both people.  Equally.  You are not.
> 
> 
> How's that ancient 3000 year old Arab artifact coming along?  Need more time?
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be_ for_ the occupation and _for _the rights of both people.  The occupation takes away the rights of one side.
Click to expand...


You grievously misunderstand my position if you think I am "for" the "occupation".  I am for the creation of two other States, for the Arab Palestinian people, with them having full sovereignty, self-determination and self-governance, based loosely on the 1949 Armistice Lines, with land swaps, as negotiated by Israel and the Arab Palestinians in a mutual agreement and enduring peace treaty. 

While we are waiting for that to occur, Israel's security and the safety of her people takes priority over ALL ELSE.  Without exception.  Security measures must be in place until the Arab Palestinians stop trying to destroy the State of Israel and murder her citizens.  This will be evident when -- the governments of the Arab Palestinians stop inciting hatred and violence, stop calling for the murder of Jews and Israelis, stop pay for slay and the celebration of dead Arab Palestinians, and when all attacks, riots, "protests", intifada, and instigation of war have ceased for a good long amount of time -- a year is a good starting place.  

The problem with your idea of the "occupation" and the need for Israel to unilaterally "end the occupation" is that you want none of the prerequisites for peace and security to be in place prior to the withdrawal.  No peace treaty, no recognition, no end of hostilities, no agreement of what is considered "occupation", no security guarantees, no formal border, no infrastructure, no proper government, no economic discussions, nothing.  

We tried it your way.  And 62 people died because of it yesterday.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So only majorities get to have rights and self-determination and nations?
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being so obtuse.
Click to expand...


Stop making stupid comments that being a majority makes any sort of difference when determining who is eligible for self-determination.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Of course Israel is an Apartheid state.  The Jews are ... separated from the non-Jews, either through different laws for Jews and/or through the pseudo-Bantustans created to house the non-Jews that are completely controlled by the Jews.



Lies.  There are no different laws for Jews, or any laws based on ethnicity or religion and it is illegal to discriminate based on religion or ethnicity.  (Not so in Iran, as example, where certain laws are written to identify people by religion).  Jews do not live separately from Arabs in Israel.  Though they do in "Palestine".  Oh wait, there are no Jews in Palestine.  The ultimate apartheid -- ethnic cleansing.  In the parts of the territory which are disputed there does tend to be a separation.  Jews tend not to like being murdered at their Shabbat tables or while they sleep.  But the "Bantustans" in Area C are at LEAST as created by the Palestinians than the Jews.  Shirley Temper and her family aren't exactly welcoming Jewish outposts on their little hill.


----------



## montelatici

Of course there are different laws for Jews.  Starting with Palestinians are denied the right to return to their land and homes while Jews who never had any land or homes in Palestine can legally "return".  Then there are another 50 or more discriminatory laws that favor Jews. Israeli law specifically identifies people by religion/race.  There are 750 thousand (and growing) Jew settlers in Palestine living in separated apartheid communities within Palestine.  You have nothing but lies to present.

Here are the 50 or more discriminatory laws:

Discriminatory Laws in Israel - Adalah


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Of course there are different laws for Jews.  Starting with Palestinians are denied the right to return to their land and homes while Jews who never had any land or homes in Palestine can legally "return".  Then there are another 50 or more discriminatory laws that favor Jews. Israeli law specifically identifies people by religion/race.  There are 750 thousand (and growing) Jew settlers in Palestine living in separated apartheid communities within Palestine.  You have nothing but lies to present.
> 
> Here are the 50 or more discriminatory laws:
> 
> Discriminatory Laws in Israel - Adalah



Yeah, yeah.  Same old same old.  None of those laws identify or discriminate people by religion or ethnicity.  I've been over them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are different laws for Jews.  Starting with Palestinians are denied the right to return to their land and homes while Jews who never had any land or homes in Palestine can legally "return".  Then there are another 50 or more discriminatory laws that favor Jews. Israeli law specifically identifies people by religion/race.  There are 750 thousand (and growing) Jew settlers in Palestine living in separated apartheid communities within Palestine.  You have nothing but lies to present.
> 
> Here are the 50 or more discriminatory laws:
> 
> Discriminatory Laws in Israel - Adalah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah.  Same old same old.  None of those laws identify or discriminate people by religion or ethnicity.  I've been over them.
Click to expand...

You haven't read the report.

UN ESCWA report on Israeli apartheid | Palestine Liberation Organization | West Bank


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are different laws for Jews.  Starting with Palestinians are denied the right to return to their land and homes while Jews who never had any land or homes in Palestine can legally "return".  Then there are another 50 or more discriminatory laws that favor Jews. Israeli law specifically identifies people by religion/race.  There are 750 thousand (and growing) Jew settlers in Palestine living in separated apartheid communities within Palestine.  You have nothing but lies to present.
> 
> Here are the 50 or more discriminatory laws:
> 
> Discriminatory Laws in Israel - Adalah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah.  Same old same old.  None of those laws identify or discriminate people by religion or ethnicity.  I've been over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't read the report.
> 
> UN ESCWA report on Israeli apartheid | Palestine Liberation Organization | West Bank
Click to expand...


You need a new source for your silly propaganda.

About ESCWA

ESCWA comprises 18 Arab countries:Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, the State of Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.


Yeah. How about that. A collection of Islamist backwaters.


Maybe you want to drag out Richard Falk, again.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are different laws for Jews.  Starting with Palestinians are denied the right to return to their land and homes while Jews who never had any land or homes in Palestine can legally "return".  Then there are another 50 or more discriminatory laws that favor Jews. Israeli law specifically identifies people by religion/race.  There are 750 thousand (and growing) Jew settlers in Palestine living in separated apartheid communities within Palestine.  You have nothing but lies to present.
> 
> Here are the 50 or more discriminatory laws:
> 
> Discriminatory Laws in Israel - Adalah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah.  Same old same old.  None of those laws identify or discriminate people by religion or ethnicity.  I've been over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't read the report.
> 
> UN ESCWA report on Israeli apartheid | Palestine Liberation Organization | West Bank
Click to expand...


Oh I've read that silly report too.  Still no laws which identify or discriminate people by religion or ethnicity.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are different laws for Jews.  Starting with Palestinians are denied the right to return to their land and homes while Jews who never had any land or homes in Palestine can legally "return".  Then there are another 50 or more discriminatory laws that favor Jews. Israeli law specifically identifies people by religion/race.  There are 750 thousand (and growing) Jew settlers in Palestine living in separated apartheid communities within Palestine.  You have nothing but lies to present.
> 
> Here are the 50 or more discriminatory laws:
> 
> Discriminatory Laws in Israel - Adalah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah.  Same old same old.  None of those laws identify or discriminate people by religion or ethnicity.  I've been over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't read the report.
> 
> UN ESCWA report on Israeli apartheid | Palestine Liberation Organization | West Bank
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I've read that silly report too.  Still no laws which identify or discriminate people by religion or ethnicity.
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> You grievously misunderstand my position if you think I am "for" the "occupation".  I am for the creation of two other States, for the Arab Palestinian people, with them having full sovereignty, self-determination and self-governance, based loosely on the 1949 Armistice Lines, with land swaps, as negotiated by Israel and the Arab Palestinians in a mutual agreement and enduring peace treaty.
> 
> While we are waiting for that to occur, Israel's security and the safety of her people takes priority over ALL ELSE.  Without exception.  Security measures must be in place until the Arab Palestinians stop trying to destroy the State of Israel and murder her citizens.  This will be evident when -- the governments of the Arab Palestinians stop inciting hatred and violence, stop calling for the murder of Jews and Israelis, stop pay for slay and the celebration of dead Arab Palestinians, and when all attacks, riots, "protests", intifada, and instigation of war have ceased for a good long amount of time -- a year is a good starting place.
> 
> The problem with your idea of the "occupation" and the need for Israel to unilaterally "end the occupation" is that you want none of the prerequisites for peace and security to be in place prior to the withdrawal.  No peace treaty, no recognition, no end of hostilities, no agreement of what is considered "occupation", no security guarantees, no formal border, no infrastructure, no proper government, no economic discussions, nothing.
> 
> We tried it your way.  And 62 people died because of it yesterday.


The occupation is the cause of the violence.  The violence cannot possibly end without the occupation ending first.  You cannot stop the effect, without first stopping the cause.

The Palestinian governments did try the political solution of a unity government and ending their more militant wings, Israel attacked.  Israel will not let the Palestinians seek peace.  The Israelis do not want peace.  If they did, they wouldn't break all the ceasefires.

BTW, those 62 people were murdered by Israeli snipers.  You are not being truthful.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Stop making stupid comments that being a majority makes any sort of difference when determining who is eligible for self-determination.


Again, I didn't say that.  Why do you keep lying?


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> The occupation is the cause of the violence.  The violence cannot possibly end without the occupation ending first.  You cannot stop the effect, without first stopping the cause.



The occupation is an excuse for violence.  It is not the cause of the violence.  Its a convenient soundbite used by anti-Israel folks to shift responsibility entirely to Israel so Arab Palestinians and their "supporters" don't have to require anything from the Arabs -- even with something as simple as a cessation of violence.

The CAUSES of the violence in Gaza right now, especially, are multiple:

1.  The deeply held belief system of Arab Muslims that the Jewish people have no rights to sovereignty over any of the territory.  This is a complex mix of religious beliefs, widespread antisemitism and the rejection of Jewish history and Jewish indigeneity.

2.  A strongly ambivalent, at best, or non-existent, at worse, desire for an independent, wholly Palestinian State as a complete and separate from #1 above combined with a resistance to be seen as culturally distinct from Syrians and Jordanians.  Neither can West Bank Palestinians and the Gazan Palestinians find it in themselves to either bring the halves together in a mutual State nor to fully separate themselves into distinct nations.

3.  The desire to return to specific locations, which is intimately tied to point #1 and point #2 where the intention is deny Jewish sovereignty and Jewish self-determination and not to be assimilated into a Jewish State in those places.  

4.  Continued sense of a lack of agency in development of their own future which is caused primarily by inept and corrupt governments and an overall lack of vision.

5.  The redistribution of resources to violence instead of toward economic health.

None of these issues can be solved by Israel "ending the occupation".  In fact, as we saw with Gaza, "ending the occupation" lead to an intensification of all of these issues.  


And, just to give you the other point of view, the CAUSES of the Israeli "occupation" are also multiple:

1.  First and foremost it is NEVER. EVER. AGAIN.  The Jewish people will never again permit themselves to be indiscriminately or deliberately slaughtered.  Neither in the homeland nor in the wider Diaspora.  Security and safety take precedence over everything else.  

2.  The Jewish people seek a national identity where the culture is primarily Jewish.  Where the Jewish people are free to live Jewish lives.  There is nothing immoral about this goal.  Not every nation needs to be a melting pot.  Most countries in the world are firmly established on the premise of a distinct ethnic culture.  And most modern wars are predicated on this stance.  

None of these issues can be solved by Israel "ending the occupation".


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making stupid comments that being a majority makes any sort of difference when determining who is eligible for self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I didn't say that.  Why do you keep lying?
Click to expand...


You brought up majority populations.  

If it doesn't matter, why did you bring it up?

If it does matter, then all my comments apply.


----------



## montelatici

"The Jewish people seek a national identity where the culture is primarily Jewish."

If so, they should not invaded a land where the majority of the people were not Jewish.  Imposing, through force,  a particular racial, religious or cultural imprint on population of others of equal or greater number is minority rule and is immoral.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> The occupation is an excuse for violence.  It is not the cause of the violence.  Its a convenient soundbite used by anti-Israel folks to shift responsibility entirely to Israel so Arab Palestinians and their "supporters" don't have to require anything from the Arabs -- even with something as simple as a cessation of violence.


You've never lived under the occupation of a foreign force, so shut your goddamn mouth!



Shusha said:


> The CAUSES of the violence in Gaza right now, especially, are multiple:
> 
> 1.  The deeply held belief system of Arab Muslims that the Jewish people have no rights to sovereignty over any of the territory.  This is a complex mix of religious beliefs, widespread antisemitism and the rejection of Jewish history and Jewish indigeneity.


Wrong!  At issue is the rights you stripped from them.



Shusha said:


> 2.  A strongly ambivalent, at best, or non-existent, at worse, desire for an independent, wholly Palestinian State as a complete and separate from #1 above combined with a resistance to be seen as culturally distinct from Syrians and Jordanians.  Neither can West Bank Palestinians and the Gazan Palestinians find it in themselves to either bring the halves together in a mutual State nor to fully separate themselves into distinct nations.


I've told you 3 times already they tried to do this.  Israel attacked.  Israel will not let them seek peace.



Shusha said:


> 3.  The desire to return to specific locations, which is intimately tied to point #1 and point #2 where the intention is deny Jewish sovereignty and Jewish self-determination and not to be assimilated into a Jewish State in those places.


If you have the right to return, then so do they.  And they do not have to become Jewish.  How very Nazi of you?



Shusha said:


> 4.  Continued sense of a lack of agency in development of their own future which is caused primarily by inept and corrupt governments and an overall lack of vision.


A population under occupation has no vision.



Shusha said:


> 5.  The redistribution of resources to violence instead of toward economic health.


You refuse to be truthful.



Shusha said:


> None of these issues can be solved by Israel "ending the occupation".  In fact, as we saw with Gaza, "ending the occupation" lead to an intensification of all of these issues.


The occupation has not ended.  This has been explained to you several times yet you keep insisting on the insane.



Shusha said:


> And, just to give you the other point of view, the CAUSES of the Israeli "occupation" are also multiple:
> 
> 1.  First and foremost it is NEVER. EVER. AGAIN.  The Jewish people will never again permit themselves to be indiscriminately or deliberately slaughtered.  Neither in the homeland nor in the wider Diaspora.  Security and safety take precedence over everything else.


 The Holocaust doesn't give you the right to treat other people like garbage.  And BTW, the Diaspora never happened.  Jews were never exiled.



Shusha said:


> 2.  The Jewish people seek a national identity where the culture is primarily Jewish.  Where the Jewish people are free to live Jewish lives.  There is nothing immoral about this goal.  Not every nation needs to be a melting pot.  Most countries in the world are firmly established on the premise of a distinct ethnic culture.  And most modern wars are predicated on this stance.


Yeah, and all the Nazis wanted was an Aryan Nation.



Shusha said:


> None of these issues can be solved by Israel "ending the occupation".


None of the issues can be solved by Israel acting like Nazi Germany.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> You brought up majority populations.
> 
> If it doesn't matter, why did you bring it up?
> 
> If it does matter, then all my comments apply.


I said Palestinian-Arabs were the majority land owners at the time of the Zionist migration.  Why do you think 10% of the population, should get 70% of the land?


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Wrong!  At issue is the rights you stripped from them.
> 
> I've told you 3 times already they tried to do this.  Israel attacked.  Israel will not let them seek peace.
> 
> If you have the right to return, then so do they.  And they do not have to become Jewish.  How very Nazi of you?
> 
> A population under occupation has no vision.
> 
> You refuse to be truthful.
> 
> The occupation has not ended.  This has been explained to you several times yet you keep insisting on the insane.
> 
> The Holocaust doesn't give you the right to treat other people like garbage.  And BTW, the Diaspora never happened.  Jews were never exiled.
> 
> Yeah, and all the Nazis wanted was an Aryan Nation.
> 
> None of the issues can be solved by Israel acting like Nazi Germany.




Its a habit with you to devolve into angry anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric when you have no adequate response.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> I said Palestinian-Arabs were the majority land owners at the time of the Zionist migration.  Why do you think 10% of the population, should get 70% of the land?



So now you are saying it matters whether a population is a majority or a minority with respect to sovereignty.  But land ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty or rights to sovereignty.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> So now you are saying it matters whether a population is a majority or a minority with respect to sovereignty.  But land ownership has nothing to do with sovereignty or rights to sovereignty.


You're so full of shit.

_There was more than a whiff of hypocrisy...in statements about “defending borders” from a state that has refused to declare its borders since its creation exactly 70 years ago... _​


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Its a habit with you to devolve into angry anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric when you have no adequate response.


Except I'm not angry.

Why is it you can't address what I said?


----------



## Billo_Really

Innocent Palestinians are being murdered by Israeli snipers and you're worried about a fence?

Israeli's are just pure evil.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Innocent Palestinians are being murdered by Israeli snipers and you're worried about a fence?
> 
> Israeli's are just pure evil.



FFS.  I'm not worried about a FENCE.  I'm worried for the lives of the people behind that fence when there are people with knives and guns and firebombs coming to kill them.  How many times have I said to you in the past two days that the safety and security of Israeli and Jewish lives is of primary importance.  

Don't you DARE lecture me on evil.  Tell Hamas and the people of Gaza to stand down and stop trying to murder Jews.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't do simple math, or prove any of those delusions without succumbing to compulsive lying and call me backwards?
> 
> Fact is - the first political tools of Zionism were created as a response to Arab pogroms against their Jewish neighbors in Syria-Palestine. Then Arabs helped Britain invade... now they whine and blame it all on the Jews.
> 
> Palestinian mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying there was no Zionist migration?
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying that Zionism was initiated by a wave of Arab Pogroms in Syria-Palestine.
And that Arabs themselves helped British military invasion, for which they've been whining for the last 100 years.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> FFS.  I'm not worried about a FENCE.  I'm worried for the lives of the people behind that fence when there are people with knives and guns and firebombs coming to kill them.  How many times have I said to you in the past two days that the safety and security of Israeli and Jewish lives is of primary importance.
> 
> Don't you DARE lecture me on evil.  Tell Hamas and the people of Gaza to stand down and stop trying to murder Jews.


Yeah, you're definitely evil.  You see a Palestinian just standing there and all of a sudden, he drops to the ground after being shot by an Israeli sniper and what do you do?  You defend the sniper who just shot an innocent, unarmed civilian.  That's evil.

You refuse to deal with Israeli aggression against its neighbors.  Israel attacks Syria, Israel attacks Lebanon, Israel attacks Gaza, and you just sit there and make up bullshit excuses for Israeli aggression.  That is evil.

You make the Pals life a living hell, but instead of protesting your fucked up fascist government, you tell lies about the Palestinians.  That is evil.

Your PM Netanfuckyou, is evil.

Driving Palestinians from their homes at the point of a gun, is evil.

You are not the victim.  Bullies never are.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> No, I'm saying that Zionism was initiated by a wave of Arab Pogroms in Syria-Palestine.
> And that Arabs themselves helped British military invasion, for which they've been whining for the last 100 years.


And Zionists staged their own invasion, by driving out 750,000 Palestinian residents from homes they've been living in for generations, at the point of a gun.  That wasn't right.  And those people have a right to return.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that Zionism was initiated by a wave of Arab Pogroms in Syria-Palestine.
> And that Arabs themselves helped British military invasion, for which they've been whining for the last 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> And Zionists staged their own invasion, by driving out 750,000 Palestinian residents from homes they've been living in for generations, at the point of a gun.  That wasn't right.  And those people have a right to return.
Click to expand...


Arabs initiated the Pogroms against their Jewish neighbors, then helped British invasion.
Now they whine about the consequences.

Arabs have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## montelatici

The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were living in Palestine peacefully before the European Jewish invasion. The Jewish invasion is the cause of the problems today.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were living in Palestine peacefully before the European Jewish invasion. The Jewish invasion is the cause of the problems today.



There was no Jewish invasion.

Your silly tirades won't reinvent history. 

If you knew anything about the history of the area, you might understand that the Christians and Jews living under the Dhimmi status wasn't always peaceful.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Yeah, you're definitely evil.  You see a Palestinian just standing there and all of a sudden, he drops to the ground after being shot by an Israeli sniper and what do you do?  You defend the sniper who just shot an innocent, unarmed civilian.  That's evil.



I have never defended a sniper who shot an innocent, unarmed civilian.  I have defended snipers who shot hostile, armed invaders intent on killing Jews on the Israeli side of the border.  I believe that the people targeted by Israel are hostile, armed invaders intent on killing Jews on the Israeli side of the border.  Now, it is fair to argue that I am incorrect in this notion and then proceed to prove me wrong.  But it is not fair to call me evil for holding beliefs which I do not, in fact, hold.


----------



## montelatici

All the unarnmed protestors, including the children were killed on the Gaza side of the fence.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> All the unarnmed protestors, including the children were killed on the Gaza side of the fence.



That's because the islamic terrorists were prevented from tearing down the fence and invading israeli territory.

The fence was an effective barrier.

Gee-had denied.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Arabs initiated the Pogroms against their Jewish neighbors, then helped British invasion.
> Now they whine about the consequences.
> 
> Arabs have no one to blame but themselves.


From 1837 - 1929 there were no major outbreaks of violence.  That all changed with the Zionist migration.  Zionists brought in all the hate and racism that kick started all the hostilities.  

_They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...' _​

- _Ahad Ha'am_ 

Now here we are, almost 100 years later and Zionists are still treating the Pals with cruelty and hostility.

Zionists are at fault for all the violence.  No doubt about it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> I have never defended a sniper who shot an innocent, unarmed civilian.  I have defended snipers who shot hostile, armed invaders intent on killing Jews on the Israeli side of the border.  I believe that the people targeted by Israel are hostile, armed invaders intent on killing Jews on the Israeli side of the border.  Now, it is fair to argue that I am incorrect in this notion and then proceed to prove me wrong.  But it is not fair to call me evil for holding beliefs which I do not, in fact, hold.


What do you call this?


----------



## Hollie

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs initiated the Pogroms against their Jewish neighbors, then helped British invasion.
> Now they whine about the consequences.
> 
> Arabs have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> From 1837 - 1929 there were no major outbreaks of violence.  That all changed with the Zionist migration.  Zionists brought in all the hate and racism that kick started all the hostilities.
> 
> _They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...' _​
> 
> - _Ahad Ha'am_
> 
> Now here we are, almost 100 years later and Zionists are still treating the Pals with cruelty and hostility.
> 
> Zionists are at fault for all the violence.  No doubt about it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the religiously inspired revulsion for Jews and Christians that is enshrined in Islamic ideology has nothing to do with the conflict.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> From 1837 - 1929 there were no major outbreaks of violence.



But yet somehow, Palestinian Jews were targeted even when they were uninvolved:

*1838 Druze revolt*

The *1838 Druze revolt*[2][3] was a Druze uprising in Syria against the authority of Ibrahim Pasha and effectively against the Khedivate of Egypt, ruled by Muhammad Ali. The rebellion was led by Druze clans of Mount Lebanon, with an aim to expel the Egyptian forces, under Ibrahim Pasha considering them as infidels. The revolt was suppressed with a bitter campaign by Pasha, after a major Druze defeat in the Wadi al-Taym, and the Egyptian rule effectively restored in Galilee and Mount Lebanon, with a peace agreement signed between the Egyptians and Druze leaders on July 23, 1838. Among the major sites of violence was the city of Safed, where the Jewish community was attacked by Druze rebels in early July 1838




Billo_Really said:


> That all changed with the Zionist migration.



What changed with the Zionist immigration is that Jews were relieved from triple taxes and "protection" ransoms to their Arab neighbors.

Q. How many Arab pogroms before any Zionist ever shot a bullet?




Billo_Really said:


> Zionists brought in all the hate and racism that kick started all the hostilities.
> Zionists are at fault for all the violence.  No doubt about it.




The Jews are responsible for all the violence?
That was never used before, where have I heard that? That must be new. 

We of course all know about the love and acceptance of the Muslim societies, those bunnies are never responsible for any violence or racism.


----------



## montelatici

With the Jews clearly indicating their intent to displace the Muslims and Christians, what should the Arabs have done?


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> With the Jews clearly indicating their intent to displace the Muslims and Christians, what should the Arabs have done?



Ask for forgiveness for displacing oldest Jewish communities from their holiest cities just 50 years prior to the Zionist immigration.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hollie said:


> Yeah, the religiously inspired revulsion for Jews and Christians that is enshrined in Islamic ideology has nothing to do with the conflict.


This is not a religious issue.  But I do understand why you want people to hate Jews.  I understand why you try, with every breath in your body, to spread Jew hate.  Because without that bullshit talking point, you have nothing to say.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> But yet somehow, Palestinian Jews were targeted even when they were uninvolved:
> 
> *1838 Druze revolt*
> 
> The *1838 Druze revolt*[2][3] was a Druze uprising in Syria against the authority of Ibrahim Pasha and effectively against the Khedivate of Egypt, ruled by Muhammad Ali. The rebellion was led by Druze clans of Mount Lebanon, with an aim to expel the Egyptian forces, under Ibrahim Pasha considering them as infidels. The revolt was suppressed with a bitter campaign by Pasha, after a major Druze defeat in the Wadi al-Taym, and the Egyptian rule effectively restored in Galilee and Mount Lebanon, with a peace agreement signed between the Egyptians and Druze leaders on July 23, 1838. Among the major sites of violence was the city of Safed, where the Jewish community was attacked by Druze rebels in early July 1838
> 
> What changed with the Zionist immigration is that Jews were relieved from triple taxes and "protection" ransoms to their Arab neighbors.
> 
> Q. How many Arab pogroms before any Zionist ever shot a bullet?


You've been able to muster up only 2 in 100 years.




rylah said:


> The Jews are responsible for all the violence?
> That was never used before, where have I heard that? That must be new.
> 
> We of course all know about the love and acceptance of the Muslim societies, those bunnies are never responsible for any violence or racism.


I didn't say Jews.  You fuckers want people to hate Jews.  You actively try to spread Jew hate.  You seem unable to handle the truth, or just what someone else says, without lying about what was said.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Ask for forgiveness for displacing oldest Jewish communities from their holiest cities just 50 years prior to the Zionist immigration.


What happened in 1850?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> But yet somehow, Palestinian Jews were targeted even when they were uninvolved:
> 
> *1838 Druze revolt*
> 
> The *1838 Druze revolt*[2][3] was a Druze uprising in Syria against the authority of Ibrahim Pasha and effectively against the Khedivate of Egypt, ruled by Muhammad Ali. The rebellion was led by Druze clans of Mount Lebanon, with an aim to expel the Egyptian forces, under Ibrahim Pasha considering them as infidels. The revolt was suppressed with a bitter campaign by Pasha, after a major Druze defeat in the Wadi al-Taym, and the Egyptian rule effectively restored in Galilee and Mount Lebanon, with a peace agreement signed between the Egyptians and Druze leaders on July 23, 1838. Among the major sites of violence was the city of Safed, where the Jewish community was attacked by Druze rebels in early July 1838
> 
> What changed with the Zionist immigration is that Jews were relieved from triple taxes and "protection" ransoms to their Arab neighbors.
> 
> Q. How many Arab pogroms before any Zionist ever shot a bullet?
> 
> 
> 
> You've been able to muster up only 2 in 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews are responsible for all the violence?
> That was never used before, where have I heard that? That must be new.
> 
> We of course all know about the love and acceptance of the Muslim societies, those bunnies are never responsible for any violence or racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say Jews.  You fuckers want people to hate Jews.  You actively try to spread Jew hate.  You seem unable to handle the truth, or just what someone else says, without lying about what was said.
Click to expand...


You clearly have a problem with simple numbers, or compulsive lying.
All needed for the spread of Jew-hate, is for You and Your Jihadi heroes to merely open their mouths.

The only difference between yesterday's and today's Arab Pogroms and Days of Rage, 
is that this time Jews have a state and an army to protect themselves from the suicidal maniacs:


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask for forgiveness for displacing oldest Jewish communities from their holiest cities just 50 years prior to the Zionist immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> What happened in 1850?
Click to expand...

 
What again? 
Learn arithmetics. SHEESH

80-30= ?


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> You clearly have a problem with simple numbers, or compulsive lying.
> All needed for the spread of Jew-hate, is for You and Your Jihadi heroes to merely open their mouths.
> 
> The only difference between yesterday's and today's Arab Pogroms and Days of Rage,
> is that this time Jews have a state and an army to protect themselves from the suicidal maniacs:


An occupational force cannot claim self defense.

But thank you for proving my point that it doesn't matter what anyone says, you push Jew hate no matter what is the topic.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> What again?
> Learn arithmetics. SHEESH
> 
> 80-30= ?


Um....80 - 30 is 50!

What happened in 1850?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> An occupational force cannot claim self defense.



GOOD NEWS! 
Are You going to tell that to the Caliph in Ramallah?


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> GOOD NEWS!
> Are You going to tell that to the Caliph in Ramallah?


I don't know the Caliph in Ramallah.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What again?
> Learn arithmetics. SHEESH
> 
> 80-30= ?
> 
> 
> 
> Um....80 - 30 is 50!
> 
> What happened in 1850?
Click to expand...


*1830' - 1840' *- Wave of Arab Pogroms, initiating the creation of first international political Jewish organization as a tool to respond to the plight of Palestinian Jews.

*1882* - the year of the 1st Aliyah, managed by the same organizations mentioned above.

Q. Why do You write here if You know so little?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOOD NEWS!
> Are You going to tell that to the Caliph in Ramallah?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the Caliph in Ramallah.
Click to expand...








(PLO chief - Mahmoud Abbas)

*Tribes of Arabia - Abbas tribe*

The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.

Another caliph? No thanks.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> All the unarnmed protestors, including the children were killed on the Gaza side of the fence.



And all the armed terrorists were killed while attempting to breach the fence with the intent of murdering Jews and removing Israeli sovereignty.  And the ratio of dead is 90% terrorist so ...


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> An occupational force cannot claim self defense.



Read:  Jews can not claim self defense.


----------



## Hollie

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have a problem with simple numbers, or compulsive lying.
> All needed for the spread of Jew-hate, is for You and Your Jihadi heroes to merely open their mouths.
> 
> The only difference between yesterday's and today's Arab Pogroms and Days of Rage,
> is that this time Jews have a state and an army to protect themselves from the suicidal maniacs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An occupational force cannot claim self defense.
> 
> But thank you for proving my point that it doesn't matter what anyone says, you push Jew hate no matter what is the topic.
Click to expand...


“An occupational force cannot claim self defense.”

Oh my. Could you email that little gem to the dead Islamic terrorists?


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> *1830' - 1840' *- Wave of Arab Pogroms, initiating the creation of first international political Jewish organization as a tool to respond to the plight of Palestinian Jews.
> 
> *1882* - the year of the 1st Aliyah, managed by the same organizations mentioned above.
> 
> Q. Why do You write here if You know so little?


I asked you to name the major outbreaks of violence in the Palestine area from 1850 to 1929.  You haven't named any.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> (PLO chief - Mahmoud Abbas)
> 
> *Tribes of Arabia - Abbas tribe*
> 
> The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.
> 
> Another caliph? No thanks.


I don't have a clue as to what your point is here.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Read:  Jews can not claim self defense.


Again, that's not what I said.

You're on the wrong side of history.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PLO chief - Mahmoud Abbas)
> 
> *Tribes of Arabia - Abbas tribe*
> 
> The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.
> 
> Another caliph? No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a clue as to what your point is here.
Click to expand...


That You don't have a clue was clear from the beginning.
But here You understood my point well, and that and once "foreign occupation" applied both ways, it crashes all Arab claims. So much that You have chickened twice to quote what You initially said.

*It's even funnier when one understands that the meaning of "Palestinian" is - INVADER.*


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1830' - 1840' *- Wave of Arab Pogroms, initiating the creation of first international political Jewish organization as a tool to respond to the plight of Palestinian Jews.
> 
> *1882* - the year of the 1st Aliyah, managed by the same organizations mentioned above.
> 
> Q. Why do You write here if You know so little?
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to name the major outbreaks of violence in the Palestine area from 1850 to 1929.  You haven't named any.
Click to expand...


That's not what You said, this is lying, because once proven wrong You have a habit to lie about own posts:



Billo_Really said:


> From 1837 - 1929 there were no major outbreaks of violence.  That all changed with the Zionist migration..




Look if all You've got is boldly lying and changing goalposts every 2 answers - then I guess I've already made my point clear:
I showed You exactly how at that time exactly, the Arab Pogroms against Jewish communities in Syria-Palestine caused the creation of first Zionist international organizations.
If You cared to look into the short period of the region You'd see a clear picture of a divided, sectarian society that was always at war within and outwards - Jews built a country and got an army. 
You don't like it? 

*Everything You blame Jews/Israelis/Zionists for - Arabs initiated and did themselves.*
*Arabs have no one to blame BUT themselves.*


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> That You don't have a clue was clear from the beginning.
> But here You understood my point well, and that and once "foreign occupation" applied both ways, it crashes all Arab claims. So much that You have chickened twice to quote what You initially said.
> 
> *It's even funnier when one understands that the meaning of "Palestinian" is - INVADER.*


You're speaking gibberish.  I need you to focus and be a little more lucid in the point you are trying to make.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> That's not what You said, this is lying, because once proven wrong You have a habit to lie about own posts:
> 
> Look if all You've got is boldly lying and changing goalposts every 2 answers - then I guess I've already made my point clear:
> I showed You exactly how at that time exactly, the Arab Pogroms against Jewish communities in Syria-Palestine caused the creation of first Zionist international organizations.
> If You cared to look into the short period of the region You'd see a clear picture of a divided, sectarian society that was always at war within and outwards - Jews built a country and got an army.
> You don't like it?
> 
> *Everything You blame Jews/Israelis/Zionists for - Arabs initiated and did themselves.*
> *Arabs have no one to blame BUT themselves.*


You showed one major uprising in 1837 and that's it!  I've asked you repeatedly to show any from that time to the Zionist migration at the turn of the century.  You haven't.  Because there weren't any!  Not until the Hebron riots, which Zionists started.  So where's the lie?

The problem is, you blame everybody but yourself.  You are a coward!


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what You said, this is lying, because once proven wrong You have a habit to lie about own posts:
> 
> Look if all You've got is boldly lying and changing goalposts every 2 answers - then I guess I've already made my point clear:
> I showed You exactly how at that time exactly, the Arab Pogroms against Jewish communities in Syria-Palestine caused the creation of first Zionist international organizations.
> If You cared to look into the short period of the region You'd see a clear picture of a divided, sectarian society that was always at war within and outwards - Jews built a country and got an army.
> You don't like it?
> 
> *Everything You blame Jews/Israelis/Zionists for - Arabs initiated and did themselves.*
> *Arabs have no one to blame BUT themselves.*
> 
> 
> 
> You showed one major uprising in 1837 and that's it!  I've asked you repeatedly to show any from that time to the Zionist migration at the turn of the century.  You haven't.  Because there weren't any!  Not until the Hebron riots, which Zionists started.  So where's the lie?
> 
> The problem is, you blame everybody but yourself.  You are a coward!
Click to expand...



You can keep trying to tell the KUMBAYA fairytales and I'll use it as an opportunity to  expose Your bold hatred and deception, and make my point clear: 
*ARABS STARTED IT ALL, BOTH ZIONISM AND THE WAR!*


*Arabs massacred their Jewish neighbors in Palestine long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.*

Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:

_"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
*On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_

Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> You can keep trying to tell the KUMBAYA fairytales and I'll use it as an opportunity to  expose Your bold hatred and deception, and make my point clear:
> *ARABS STARTED IT ALL, BOTH ZIONISM AND THE WAR!*
> 
> 
> *Arabs massacred their Jewish neighbors in Palestine long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.*
> 
> Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873


Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That You don't have a clue was clear from the beginning.
> But here You understood my point well, and that and once "foreign occupation" applied both ways, it crashes all Arab claims. So much that You have chickened twice to quote what You initially said.
> 
> *It's even funnier when one understands that the meaning of "Palestinian" is - INVADER.*
> 
> 
> 
> You're speaking gibberish.  I need you to focus and be a little more lucid in the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...


You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?

This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.

Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep trying to tell the KUMBAYA fairytales and I'll use it as an opportunity to  expose Your bold hatred and deception, and make my point clear:
> *ARABS STARTED IT ALL, BOTH ZIONISM AND THE WAR!*
> 
> 
> *Arabs massacred their Jewish neighbors in Palestine long before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.*
> 
> Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!
Click to expand...


That bold in Your ignorance...

But BTW, they themselves call the place *THE JEWISH DESERT* :

*Sahara Yahudin -*صحراء يهودا‎ 

The Judaean Desert or Judean Desert (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ _Midbar Yehuda_, both _Desert of Judah_ or _Judaean Desert_; Arabic: _Sahara Yahudan_) is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by terraces with escarpments.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what You said, this is lying, because once proven wrong You have a habit to lie about own posts:
> 
> Look if all You've got is boldly lying and changing goalposts every 2 answers - then I guess I've already made my point clear:
> I showed You exactly how at that time exactly, the Arab Pogroms against Jewish communities in Syria-Palestine caused the creation of first Zionist international organizations.
> If You cared to look into the short period of the region You'd see a clear picture of a divided, sectarian society that was always at war within and outwards - Jews built a country and got an army.
> You don't like it?
> 
> *Everything You blame Jews/Israelis/Zionists for - Arabs initiated and did themselves.*
> *Arabs have no one to blame BUT themselves.*
> 
> 
> 
> You showed one major uprising in 1837 and that's it!  I've asked you repeatedly to show any from that time to the Zionist migration at the turn of the century.  You haven't.  Because there weren't any!  Not until the Hebron riots, which Zionists started.  So where's the lie?
> 
> The problem is, you blame everybody but yourself.  You are a coward!
Click to expand...

Indeed, if you have to go back to 1837 it doesn't look like a systemic problem. Then the Zionists came down from Europe and started the war we still see today.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what You said, this is lying, because once proven wrong You have a habit to lie about own posts:
> 
> Look if all You've got is boldly lying and changing goalposts every 2 answers - then I guess I've already made my point clear:
> I showed You exactly how at that time exactly, the Arab Pogroms against Jewish communities in Syria-Palestine caused the creation of first Zionist international organizations.
> If You cared to look into the short period of the region You'd see a clear picture of a divided, sectarian society that was always at war within and outwards - Jews built a country and got an army.
> You don't like it?
> 
> *Everything You blame Jews/Israelis/Zionists for - Arabs initiated and did themselves.*
> *Arabs have no one to blame BUT themselves.*
> 
> 
> 
> You showed one major uprising in 1837 and that's it!  I've asked you repeatedly to show any from that time to the Zionist migration at the turn of the century.  You haven't.  Because there weren't any!  Not until the Hebron riots, which Zionists started.  So where's the lie?
> 
> The problem is, you blame everybody but yourself.  You are a coward!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, if you have to go back to 1837 it doesn't look like a systemic problem. Then the Zionists came down from Europe and started the war we still see today.
Click to expand...


Another one who plays dumb for his Jihadi lunatics.
Show me a decade when there were no Pogroms against the minorities in Syria-Palestine?

All I did was show You the Arab Pogroms that initiated Zionism, I think the point is clear.
Anything done by Israelis/Jews/Zionists was in response, and the violence was initiated on the Arab side.

*Plain and simple -Arabs lost the war they started.*
*And this war started even before they helped Britain invade.*


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.


Except they're not invading, you are.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> That bold in Your ignorance...
> 
> But BTW, they themselves call the place *THE JEWISH DESERT* :
> 
> *Sahara Yahudin -*صحراء يهودا‎
> 
> The Judaean Desert or Judean Desert (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ _Midbar Yehuda_, both _Desert of Judah_ or _Judaean Desert_; Arabic: _Sahara Yahudan_) is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by terraces with escarpments.


It's not ignorance, its the truth.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Another one who plays dumb for his Jihadi lunatics.
> Show me a decade when there were no Pogroms against the minorities in Syria-Palestine?
> 
> All I did was show You the Arab Pogroms that initiated Zionism, I think the point is clear.
> Anything done by Israelis/Jews/Zionists was in response, and the violence was initiated on the Arab side.
> 
> *Plain and simple -Arabs lost the war they started.*
> *And this war started even before they helped Britain invade.*


You can't re-write history.

_During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, *whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia* felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, *followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community *as the Second World War drew to a close._​
Resistance to the Mandate, followed by Jewish terrorism.  

You started the violence!


----------



## Hollie

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
Click to expand...


Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader. 

Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down. 

Its Ram'adan. Go eat.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
Click to expand...

According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."
Click to expand...

You are really on towards writing nonsense today in every post.
Ramadan is hurting you.

Your "actual history" refuses to see Palestine as the  region it always was and insists in turning it into the "country" it never was, still is not, and may never be.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."
Click to expand...

Your version of "Befuddled Islamist History" is a hoot.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are really on towards writing nonsense today in every post.
> Ramadan is hurting you.
> 
> Your "actual history" refuses to see Palestine as the  region it always was and insists in turning it into the "country" it never was, still is not, and may never be.
Click to expand...

You need to read up. Your ignorance is showing.

Nice deflection though.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your version of "Befuddled Islamist History" is a hoot.
Click to expand...

Would you care to prove me wrong.

Of course not.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are really on towards writing nonsense today in every post.
> Ramadan is hurting you.
> 
> Your "actual history" refuses to see Palestine as the  region it always was and insists in turning it into the "country" it never was, still is not, and may never be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read up. Your ignorance is showing.
> 
> Nice deflection though.
Click to expand...

You do not read.  You hunt Jews for a living and glory in their destruction.

It will never happen, My Christian Master  !!!!!


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your version of "Befuddled Islamist History" is a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you care to prove me wrong.
> 
> Of course not.
Click to expand...

Any proof of geography, history, etc  your simply spit on as it does not conform to what you need to be true to make your Christian mind happy that you are still a Christian.

Short sentences from a short mind, as always.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> That bold in Your ignorance...
> 
> But BTW, they themselves call the place *THE JEWISH DESERT* :
> 
> *Sahara Yahudin -*صحراء يهودا‎
> 
> The Judaean Desert or Judean Desert (Hebrew: מִדְבַּר יְהוּדָה‎ _Midbar Yehuda_, both _Desert of Judah_ or _Judaean Desert_; Arabic: _Sahara Yahudan_) is a desert in Israel and the West Bank that lies east of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It stretches from the northeastern Negev to the east of Beit El, and is marked by terraces with escarpments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not ignorance, its the truth.
Click to expand...


Here is another example of the underlying disregard you have for the indigenous Jewish people which betrays your true beliefs.  While you pay a casual lip service to the "1967" lines, in your other posts, such as this one, you reveal nothing but contempt for the Jewish narrative and the fundamental rights of the Jewish people to their historical, ancestral and religious homeland.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!


 


You have no clue neither about history nor about geography.
Show me one country in the region which wasn't invaded by Arabs?


*Even according to Palestinian sources Arabs are migrants and descendant's of colonizing invaders:*

*Kafr ad Dik Town Profile*

Location and Physical Characteristics
Rafat is a Palestinian village in the Salfit Governorate located 13 km west of Salfit City. It is bordered by Kafr ad Dik village to the east, Deir Ballut to the south, Kafr Qasem (of 1948 lands) to the west, and Az Zawiya town to the north (ARIJ-GIS, 2013) (See Map 1).

History
Kafr ad Dik town is said to be named after a man called “Ad Dik” who is believed to have come from the Arabian Peninsula and lived in the Jordan Valley area for a period of time before he moved to the town and settled in it. Prior re to his arrival the region was called “Kafir Ben Muhanna.” *The town was established in 1700 with its residents descending from Arab al Masa‟id tribe from the Arabian Peninsula (Kafr ad Dik Municipality, 2012).*

http://vprofile.arij.org/salfit/pdfs/vprofile/Kafr ad Dik_tp_en.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your version of "Befuddled Islamist History" is a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you care to prove me wrong.
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of geography, history, etc  your simply spit on as it does not conform to what you need to be true to make your Christian mind happy that you are still a Christian.
> 
> Short sentences from a short mind, as always.
Click to expand...

Nothing to prove me wrong, huh?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue neither about history nor about geography.
> Show me one country in the region which wasn't invaded by Arabs?
> 
> 
> *Even according to Palestinian sources Arabs are migrants and descendant's of colonizing invaders:*
> 
> *Kafr ad Dik Town Profile*
> 
> Location and Physical Characteristics
> Rafat is a Palestinian village in the Salfit Governorate located 13 km west of Salfit City. It is bordered by Kafr ad Dik village to the east, Deir Ballut to the south, Kafr Qasem (of 1948 lands) to the west, and Az Zawiya town to the north (ARIJ-GIS, 2013) (See Map 1).
> 
> History
> Kafr ad Dik town is said to be named after a man called “Ad Dik” who is believed to have come from the Arabian Peninsula and lived in the Jordan Valley area for a period of time before he moved to the town and settled in it. Prior re to his arrival the region was called “Kafir Ben Muhanna.” *The town was established in 1700 with its residents descending from Arab al Masa‟id tribe from the Arabian Peninsula (Kafr ad Dik Municipality, 2012).*
> 
> http://vprofile.arij.org/salfit/pdfs/vprofile/Kafr ad Dik_tp_en.pdf
Click to expand...

Interesting, who did they displace?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!



*Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*

Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.

** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.

So compared to the waves of invading Arabian tribes throughout the history, Jewish immigration was just a drop in the bucket. While it took centuries for invading Arabian tribes to turn the place into a barren land full of swamps and disease, it took less than a 100 years of Jewish immigration to turn the place into the most advanced country in the middle east. *The land itself shows whom it belongs to.*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one playing dumb, and I need to focus?
> 
> This couldn't be simpler: "PALESTINIAN" - means "INVADER" in the local languages.
> Arabs don't even know the original meaning of the word but ,ironically Arabs fit the description spot on.
> 
> Calling someone a "foreign invader" while having "INVADER" written on Your forehead is quiet the circus.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they're not invading, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the goal of your Islamic terrorist riots was to breach the Israeli border. So, it's quite clear you are the (wannabe) invader.
> 
> Your invasion didn't work out quite so well. It was another islamic terrorist beat-down.
> 
> Its Ram'adan. Go eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the UN and actual history, it is Palestine on both sides of that "border."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your version of "Befuddled Islamist History" is a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you care to prove me wrong.
> 
> Of course not.
Click to expand...

It's not up to me to "prove you wrong" on all the unsupported statements you dump into threads.

Your silly one-liners litter most threads. And because I did prove you wrong, disprove that disproof.

Wrap yourself around that for a bit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> So compared to the waves of invading Arabian tribes throughout the history, Jewish immigration was just a drop in the bucket. While it took centuries for invading Arabian tribes to turn the place into a barren land full of swamps and disease, it took less than a 100 years of Jewish immigration to turn the place into the most advanced country in the middle east. *The land itself shows whom it belongs to.*
Click to expand...

There is something missing here.

The 1925 citizenship order automatically gave Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who were present in the country at that time. Those who were out of the country for any reason were not counted. However, the order stipulated that all Palestinians had two years to return home or lose their citizenship.

This number was not mentioned.

Don't bring up the old Israel made the desert bloom canard again. Palestine produced a surplus of food that was exported to other Arab countries and Europe.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> So compared to the waves of invading Arabian tribes throughout the history, Jewish immigration was just a drop in the bucket. While it took centuries for invading Arabian tribes to turn the place into a barren land full of swamps and disease, it took less than a 100 years of Jewish immigration to turn the place into the most advanced country in the middle east. *The land itself shows whom it belongs to.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is something missing here.
> 
> The 1925 citizenship order automatically gave Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who were present in the country at that time. Those who were out of the country for any reason were not counted. However, the order stipulated that all Palestinians had two years to return home or lose their citizenship.
> 
> This number was not mentioned.
> 
> Don't bring up the old Israel made the desert bloom canard again. Palestine produced a surplus of food that was exported to other Arab countries and Europe.
Click to expand...

I think what’s missing is your acknowledgement that you’re, yet again, attempting to perpetuate a fraud.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> So compared to the waves of invading Arabian tribes throughout the history, Jewish immigration was just a drop in the bucket. While it took centuries for invading Arabian tribes to turn the place into a barren land full of swamps and disease, it took less than a 100 years of Jewish immigration to turn the place into the most advanced country in the middle east. *The land itself shows whom it belongs to.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is something missing here.
> 
> The 1925 citizenship order automatically gave Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who were present in the country at that time. Those who were out of the country for any reason were not counted. However, the order stipulated that all Palestinians had two years to return home or lose their citizenship.
> 
> This number was not mentioned.
> 
> Don't bring up the old Israel made the desert bloom canard again. Palestine produced a surplus of food that was exported to other Arab countries and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think what’s missing is your acknowledgement that you’re, yet again, attempting to perpetuate a fraud.
Click to expand...

It's true, look it up.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> So compared to the waves of invading Arabian tribes throughout the history, Jewish immigration was just a drop in the bucket. While it took centuries for invading Arabian tribes to turn the place into a barren land full of swamps and disease, it took less than a 100 years of Jewish immigration to turn the place into the most advanced country in the middle east. *The land itself shows whom it belongs to.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is something missing here.
> 
> The 1925 citizenship order automatically gave Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who were present in the country at that time. Those who were out of the country for any reason were not counted. However, the order stipulated that all Palestinians had two years to return home or lose their citizenship.
> 
> This number was not mentioned.
> 
> Don't bring up the old Israel made the desert bloom canard again. Palestine produced a surplus of food that was exported to other Arab countries and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think what’s missing is your acknowledgement that you’re, yet again, attempting to perpetuate a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true, look it up.
Click to expand...


I looked it up. That’s why I know you attempted to perpetrate the same fraud you have tried to perpetrate many times before. 

Your continued attempt at fraud makes you appear desperate, dishonest, ignorant? You pick the term.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs didn't migrate into the area.  You did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> So compared to the waves of invading Arabian tribes throughout the history, Jewish immigration was just a drop in the bucket. While it took centuries for invading Arabian tribes to turn the place into a barren land full of swamps and disease, it took less than a 100 years of Jewish immigration to turn the place into the most advanced country in the middle east. *The land itself shows whom it belongs to.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is something missing here.
> 
> The 1925 citizenship order automatically gave Palestinian citizenship to all of the Palestinians who were present in the country at that time. Those who were out of the country for any reason were not counted. However, the order stipulated that all Palestinians had two years to return home or lose their citizenship.
> 
> This number was not mentioned.
> 
> Don't bring up the old Israel made the desert bloom canard again. Palestine produced a surplus of food that was exported to other Arab countries and Europe.
Click to expand...


So does apply to Jews who fled because of rough conditions under the Muslim rule.

----------------------------------------------------------
Bedouin tribes, such as the notorious Ben Sakk'r, of whom H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel: A Journal of Travels in Palestine, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1865) wrote that they "can muster 1,000 cavalry and always join their brethren when a raid or war is on the move. They have obtained their present possessions gradually and, in great measure, by driving out the fellahin (peasants), destroying their villages and reducing their rich corn-fields to pasturage." (p. 488.)
*Tristram goes on to present a remarkable and highly revealing description of conditions in Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River in the middle of the 19th century—a description that belies the Arab claim of a tranquil, normally developing Palestinian rural economy allegedly disrupted by Jewish immigration and settlement.*


"Tristram goes on to present a remarkable and highly revealing description of conditions in Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River in the middle of the 19th century—a description that belies the Arab claim of a tranquil, normally developing Palestinian rural economy allegedly disrupted by Jewish immigration and settlement. A few years ago, the whole Ghor was in the hands of the fellahin, and much of it cultivated for corn. Now the whole of it is in the hands of the Bedouin, who eschew all agriculture, except in a few spots cultivated here and there by their slaves; and with the Bedouin come lawlessness and the uprooting of all Turkish authority. No government is now acknowledged on the east side; and unless the Porte acts with greater firmness and caution than is his wont . . . Palestine will be desolated and given up to the nomads. The same thing is now going on over the plain of Sharon, where, both in the north and south, land is going out of cultivation, and whole villages rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth. *Since the year 1838, no less than 20 villages have been thus erased from the map and the stationary population extirpated. Very rapidly the Bedouin are encroaching wherever horse can be ridden; and the Government is utterly powerless to resist them or to defend its subjects. (p. 490)"*

With regard to yet another region in Palestine—the Beisan (Beit Shean) area—we quote from the report of Mr. Lewis French, Director of Development appointed by the British Government in 1931: We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria. . . . Large areas of their lands were uncultivated and covered with weeds. There were no trees, no vegetables. The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbour these and other criminals. The individual plots of cultivation changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbours the Bedouin.
*
This, then, was the picture of Palestine in the closing decades of the 19th century and up to the First World War:*
a land that was overwhelmingly desert, with nomads continually encroaching on the settled areas and its farmers; a lack of elementary facilities and equipment; peasants wallowing in poverty, ignorance and disease, saddled with debts (interest rates at times were as high as 60 per cent) and threatened by warlike nomads or neighbouring clans. T h e result was a growing neglect of the soil and a flight from the villages, with a mounting concentration of lands in the hands of a small number of large landowners, frequently residing in such distant Arab capitals as Beirut and Damascus, Cairo and Kuwait. Here, in other words, was a social and economic order that *had all the earmarks of a medieval feudal society.*

https://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf

Q. Wonder why Jews resisted the notion of another Muslim rule?


----------



## montelatici

Sure it was all desert in the late 19th century.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Sure it was all desert in the late 19th century.



That's 20 years after the 1st Zionist immigration, after decades of Jewish projects and investment.

And yes it was pretty much the most abused and mistreated district of the Ottoman empire.
Swamps and diseases don't appear when people actively live and treat the land. It took Jews less than 50 years to dry them all and make the land flower with milk and honey.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Here is another example of the underlying disregard you have for the indigenous Jewish people which betrays your true beliefs.  While you pay a casual lip service to the "1967" lines, in your other posts, such as this one, you reveal nothing but contempt for the Jewish narrative and the fundamental rights of the Jewish people to their historical, ancestral and religious homeland.


Um....earth to Shusha, earth to Shusha, the 2nd bubble down shows I'm very kind to indigenous Palestinian-Jews.

_"10% of peaceful, indigenous Palestinian-Jews, saw their homeland invaded by asshole Zionists..."_​
I called the Jews peaceful.
I called them indigenous.
And I referred to the area where they lived as their "homeland".

That is YOUR argument!  So why is it, when I say it, does it become "contempt"?


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> So why is it, when I say it, does it become "contempt"?



Um. Could it be because you also include the words:  asshole, narcissistic, racist, apartheid, hostile and violent when describing Jews?  Tough one.  But I think that could be it.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> Um....earth to Shusha, earth to Shusha, the 2nd bubble down shows I'm very kind to indigenous Palestinian-Jews.
> 
> _"10% of peaceful, indigenous Palestinian-Jews, saw their homeland invaded by asshole Zionists..."_​
> I called the Jews peaceful.
> I called them indigenous.
> And I referred to the area where they lived as their "homeland".
> 
> That is YOUR argument!  So why is it, when I say it, does it become "contempt"?



You're a BS artist.







During the War of Independence in 1948, a number of yeshiva
students came to Rabbi Uziel to obtain exemptions from military service.
He rejected their requests and *said that if he were not already an
old man himself, he would be holding a gun and hand grenade, fighting
to defend the Old City of Jerusalem where he was born and raised.
This was a battle of life and death for the people of Israel. How could
anyone want to be exempted from fighting this great battle?* On the
contrary, each person should rise to the occasion and give strength to
his fellow soldiers. He told the yeshiva students that it was a mitsvah for
them to join in the defense of their people, to risk their lives alongside
their brothers, to defend the Jewish people and the Jewish land. [11]

The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel | jewishideas.org


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> You have no clue neither about history nor about geography.
> Show me one country in the region which wasn't invaded by Arabs?
> 
> 
> *Even according to Palestinian sources Arabs are migrants and descendant's of colonizing invaders:*
> 
> *Kafr ad Dik Town Profile*
> 
> Location and Physical Characteristics
> Rafat is a Palestinian village in the Salfit Governorate located 13 km west of Salfit City. It is bordered by Kafr ad Dik village to the east, Deir Ballut to the south, Kafr Qasem (of 1948 lands) to the west, and Az Zawiya town to the north (ARIJ-GIS, 2013) (See Map 1).
> 
> History
> Kafr ad Dik town is said to be named after a man called “Ad Dik” who is believed to have come from the Arabian Peninsula and lived in the Jordan Valley area for a period of time before he moved to the town and settled in it. Prior re to his arrival the region was called “Kafir Ben Muhanna.” *The town was established in 1700 with its residents descending from Arab al Masa‟id tribe from the Arabian Peninsula (Kafr ad Dik Municipality, 2012).*
> 
> http://vprofile.arij.org/salfit/pdfs/vprofile/Kafr ad Dik_tp_en.pdf


Then why is it, the famous Zionist humanist Ahad Ha'am, referred to the migrating Zionists as the "settlers" and the Palestinian-arabs as the "natives"?

_"Ahad Ha'am warned that the *settlers* must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the *natives*..." _​
Drop the mic!  I'd like to thank the Academy...


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue neither about history nor about geography.
> Show me one country in the region which wasn't invaded by Arabs?
> 
> 
> *Even according to Palestinian sources Arabs are migrants and descendant's of colonizing invaders:*
> 
> *Kafr ad Dik Town Profile*
> 
> Location and Physical Characteristics
> Rafat is a Palestinian village in the Salfit Governorate located 13 km west of Salfit City. It is bordered by Kafr ad Dik village to the east, Deir Ballut to the south, Kafr Qasem (of 1948 lands) to the west, and Az Zawiya town to the north (ARIJ-GIS, 2013) (See Map 1).
> 
> History
> Kafr ad Dik town is said to be named after a man called “Ad Dik” who is believed to have come from the Arabian Peninsula and lived in the Jordan Valley area for a period of time before he moved to the town and settled in it. Prior re to his arrival the region was called “Kafir Ben Muhanna.” *The town was established in 1700 with its residents descending from Arab al Masa‟id tribe from the Arabian Peninsula (Kafr ad Dik Municipality, 2012).*
> 
> http://vprofile.arij.org/salfit/pdfs/vprofile/Kafr ad Dik_tp_en.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is it, the famous Zionist humanist Ahad Ha'am, referred to the migrating Zionists as the "settlers" and the Palestinian-arabs as the "natives"?
> 
> _"Ahad Ha'am warned that the *settlers* must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the *natives*..." _​
> Drop the mic!  I'd like to thank the Academy...
Click to expand...


He was not a historian.
Try facts.

Muslim conquest of the Levant - Wikipedia


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue neither about history nor about geography.
> Show me one country in the region which wasn't invaded by Arabs?
> 
> 
> *Even according to Palestinian sources Arabs are migrants and descendant's of colonizing invaders:*
> 
> *Kafr ad Dik Town Profile*
> 
> Location and Physical Characteristics
> Rafat is a Palestinian village in the Salfit Governorate located 13 km west of Salfit City. It is bordered by Kafr ad Dik village to the east, Deir Ballut to the south, Kafr Qasem (of 1948 lands) to the west, and Az Zawiya town to the north (ARIJ-GIS, 2013) (See Map 1).
> 
> History
> Kafr ad Dik town is said to be named after a man called “Ad Dik” who is believed to have come from the Arabian Peninsula and lived in the Jordan Valley area for a period of time before he moved to the town and settled in it. Prior re to his arrival the region was called “Kafir Ben Muhanna.” *The town was established in 1700 with its residents descending from Arab al Masa‟id tribe from the Arabian Peninsula (Kafr ad Dik Municipality, 2012).*
> 
> http://vprofile.arij.org/salfit/pdfs/vprofile/Kafr ad Dik_tp_en.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is it, the famous Zionist humanist Ahad Ha'am, referred to the migrating Zionists as the "settlers" and the Palestinian-arabs as the "natives"?
> 
> _"Ahad Ha'am warned that the *settlers* must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the *natives*..." _​
> Drop the mic!  I'd like to thank the Academy...
Click to expand...

It was written by a Pro Palestine group or person.

Read it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> So compared to the waves of invading Arabian tribes throughout the history, Jewish immigration was just a drop in the bucket. While it took centuries for invading Arabian tribes to turn the place into a barren land full of swamps and disease, it took less than a 100 years of Jewish immigration to turn the place into the most advanced country in the middle east. *The land itself shows whom it belongs to.*


According to Lord Curzon in 1920...

_"Here is a country with 580,000 Arabs and 30,000 or is it 60,000 Jews (by no means all Zionists)..."_​
According to UN records, Zionist immigration into Palestine from 1920 - 1929 was as follows...

_... during the decade about 100,000 Jewish immigrants entered Palestine, 

the total population in 1922 was officially estimated at about 750,000. 

In absolute terms the Jewish population more than doubled, and in percentage terms rose from below 10 per cent to over 17 per cent during this period._​Jews were only 17% of a population of 750,000 inhabitants.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Um. Could it be because you also include the words:  asshole, narcissistic, racist, apartheid, hostile and violent when describing Jews?  Tough one.  But I think that could be it.


Those words are for Zionists, not indigenous Jews.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> So compared to the waves of invading Arabian tribes throughout the history, Jewish immigration was just a drop in the bucket. While it took centuries for invading Arabian tribes to turn the place into a barren land full of swamps and disease, it took less than a 100 years of Jewish immigration to turn the place into the most advanced country in the middle east. *The land itself shows whom it belongs to.*
> 
> 
> 
> According to Lord Curzon in 1920...
> 
> _"Here is a country with 580,000 Arabs and 30,000 or is it 60,000 Jews (by no means all Zionists)..."_​
> According to UN records, Zionist immigration into Palestine from 1920 - 1929 was as follows...
> 
> _... during the decade about 100,000 Jewish immigrants entered Palestine,
> 
> the total population in 1922 was officially estimated at about 750,000.
> 
> In absolute terms the Jewish population more than doubled, and in percentage terms rose from below 10 per cent to over 17 per cent during this period._​Jews were only 17% of a population of 750,000 inhabitants.
Click to expand...

The creation of the State of Israel had absolutely nothing to do with numbers.  It had everything to so with the Jewish People being the indigenous people of the area and having the right to recreate their nation on that land.

They did it legally, without an invasion and lots of weapons to scare off the rest of the population living there.

Something which cannot be said about the Arabs or other Muslims from the 7th century on.

Many of the Arab tribe leaders were on the side of Germany and the Ottoman Empire.  They lost.  Still, they got 99% of the Middle East to create Lebanon, Syria and Iraq under Arab control.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um. Could it be because you also include the words:  asshole, narcissistic, racist, apartheid, hostile and violent when describing Jews?  Tough one.  But I think that could be it.
> 
> 
> 
> Those words are for Zionists, not indigenous Jews.
Click to expand...

The issue remains that you do not know who is an indigenous Jew.

You keep putting them in different categories.

Jews on one side, Zionists on the other.

Zionists are indigenous Jews who went to live in Europe at some point, and decided to return at the end of the 19th century to recreate their Nation in a legal way.

Many Jews who went to live in Europe returned to their homeland before the Zionist movement.

All are Jews, you accept it or not.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> You're a BS artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the War of Independence in 1948, a number of yeshiva
> students came to Rabbi Uziel to obtain exemptions from military service.
> He rejected their requests and *said that if he were not already an
> old man himself, he would be holding a gun and hand grenade, fighting
> to defend the Old City of Jerusalem where he was born and raised.
> This was a battle of life and death for the people of Israel. How could
> anyone want to be exempted from fighting this great battle?* On the
> contrary, each person should rise to the occasion and give strength to
> his fellow soldiers. He told the yeshiva students that it was a mitsvah for
> them to join in the defense of their people, to risk their lives alongside
> their brothers, to defend the Jewish people and the Jewish land. [11]
> 
> The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel | jewishideas.org


There wouldn't have been a war, if you hadn't treated the Arabs like garbage.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> He was not a historian.
> Try facts.
> 
> Muslim conquest of the Levant - Wikipedia


You're funny.  He didn't have to be.  He was living at that time in history.  You don't have to be a historian, when you are part of the history.

Maybe you object because he's a Zionist with humanity and you like your Zionists to be crazy and inhuman?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a BS artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the War of Independence in 1948, a number of yeshiva
> students came to Rabbi Uziel to obtain exemptions from military service.
> He rejected their requests and *said that if he were not already an
> old man himself, he would be holding a gun and hand grenade, fighting
> to defend the Old City of Jerusalem where he was born and raised.
> This was a battle of life and death for the people of Israel. How could
> anyone want to be exempted from fighting this great battle?* On the
> contrary, each person should rise to the occasion and give strength to
> his fellow soldiers. He told the yeshiva students that it was a mitsvah for
> them to join in the defense of their people, to risk their lives alongside
> their brothers, to defend the Jewish people and the Jewish land. [11]
> 
> The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel | jewishideas.org
> 
> 
> 
> There wouldn't have been a war, if you hadn't treated the Arabs like garbage.
Click to expand...

You keep inverting history.
It does not matter.

Israel exists, and your rejection of it and all the Jews (most are Zionists ) will not make it disappear ever.

Your viciousness and that of the Muslims and Christians who hate Jews will make sure that Israel will remain strong, always.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> It was written by a Pro Palestine group or person.
> 
> Read it with a grain of salt.


You're saying Ahad Ha'am was pro-Palestinian?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was not a historian.
> Try facts.
> 
> Muslim conquest of the Levant - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> You're funny.  He didn't have to be.  He was living at that time in history.  You don't have to be a historian, when you are part of the history.
> 
> Maybe you object because he's a Zionist with humanity and you like your Zionists to be crazy and inhuman?
Click to expand...

When yo do finally learn the meaning of the word Zionism, let us know.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was written by a Pro Palestine group or person.
> 
> Read it with a grain of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying Ahad Ha'am was pro-Palestinian?
Click to expand...

UNISPAL is a Palestinian site.  Duh.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> The creation of the State of Israel had absolutely nothing to do with numbers.  It had everything to so with the Jewish People being the indigenous people of the area and having the right to recreate their nation on that land.
> 
> They did it legally, without an invasion and lots of weapons to scare off the rest of the population living there.
> 
> Something which cannot be said about the Arabs or other Muslims from the 7th century on.
> 
> Many of the Arab tribe leaders were on the side of Germany and the Ottoman Empire.  They lost.  Still, they got 99% of the Middle East to create Lebanon, Syria and Iraq under Arab control.


Arabs were just as indigenous as Jews.  You were told this in the Balfour Declaration.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> *Drop the mic!  I'd like to thank the Academy...*


Yeah right...I'd suggest clown school. 
What academy would let You in in the first place?
---------------------------------------------------------


Egyptians-Masarwa clan

The Masarwa clan (in Arabic : Masarwa , in Hebrew transliterated from Mazarwa ) is one of the largest Arab families in Israel. *The name of the clan preserves its Egyptian origin*.

*History *
The geographical proximity and the fact that the Land of Israel was for centuries under a regime centered in Egypt led to the almost permanent migration of peasants and Bedouins from Egypt to the Land of Israel. *Beginning in the 18th century , this immigration increased, culminating in the days of Ibrahim Pasha, who conquered Palestine in 1831 and ruled it until 1840 . Many of his soldiers had deserted and remained in the country, and general immigration had increased since his rule.* During the British Mandate many workers were brought from Egypt and some remained in Israel. The rise in the standard of living of the Arabs in the country also had a great influence on the Egyptian fellahs from the delta region, who suffered from great poverty and overcrowding.

*The Egyptian immigrants dispersed throughout the country, but mainly concentrated between Tulkarm and Gaza. *Some of the names of the villages and the family names of the Arabs in the country testify to the Egyptian origin or hint at a certain place of origin in Egypt. According to Yaakov Shimoni, this group is the largest of the foreign minorities among Muslims in Israel. [1] [2]

Q. What did You say about Arab migrations, and the rights of foreign occupants, again please?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> The issue remains that you do not know who is an indigenous Jew.
> 
> You keep putting them in different categories.
> 
> Jews on one side, Zionists on the other.
> 
> Zionists are indigenous Jews who went to live in Europe at some point, and decided to return at the end of the 19th century to recreate their Nation in a legal way.
> 
> Many Jews who went to live in Europe returned to their homeland before the Zionist movement.
> 
> All are Jews, you accept it or not.


Indigenous Jews are the Jews who were living there along side indigenous Arabs.  Zionists are the assholes who moved in to the area treating all the Arabs like garbage.

Zionism is a political movement.  Judaism is a religion.  They are two very different things.  Zionism uses Judaism much the same way a cheap whore uses a tampon.  To be used when needed, then discarded in the trash when it is no longer useful.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of the State of Israel had absolutely nothing to do with numbers.  It had everything to so with the Jewish People being the indigenous people of the area and having the right to recreate their nation on that land.
> 
> They did it legally, without an invasion and lots of weapons to scare off the rest of the population living there.
> 
> Something which cannot be said about the Arabs or other Muslims from the 7th century on.
> 
> Many of the Arab tribe leaders were on the side of Germany and the Ottoman Empire.  They lost.  Still, they got 99% of the Middle East to create Lebanon, Syria and Iraq under Arab control.
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs were just as indigenous as Jews.  You were told this in the Balfour Declaration.
Click to expand...

A people cannot be indigenous from two different places.

Kenyans cannot be indigenous of Sudan and vice-versa.

The Berbers cannot be indigenous of Egypt and the Copts indigenous of Morocco. 

No, the Balfour Declaration did not say that non Jews were Indigenous of the land.

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> You keep inverting history.
> It does not matter.
> 
> Israel exists, and your rejection of it and all the Jews (most are Zionists ) will not make it disappear ever.
> 
> Your viciousness and that of the Muslims and Christians who hate Jews will make sure that Israel will remain strong, always.


You shoot at 8 month old babies; you shoot at people in wheelchairs; you shoot at people fishing; you shoot at people farming; yet you call me vicious?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue remains that you do not know who is an indigenous Jew.
> 
> You keep putting them in different categories.
> 
> Jews on one side, Zionists on the other.
> 
> Zionists are indigenous Jews who went to live in Europe at some point, and decided to return at the end of the 19th century to recreate their Nation in a legal way.
> 
> Many Jews who went to live in Europe returned to their homeland before the Zionist movement.
> 
> All are Jews, you accept it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Indigenous Jews are the Jews who were living there along side indigenous Arabs.  Zionists are the assholes who moved in to the area treating all the Arabs like garbage.
> 
> Zionism is a political movement.  Judaism is a religion.  They are two very different things.  Zionism uses Judaism much the same way a cheap whore uses a tampon.  To be used when needed, then discarded in the trash when it is no longer useful.
Click to expand...

Learn the meaning of the word Indigenous.

Being born anywhere, does not make one indigenous FROM that area.

You are delirious.

Arabs are born anywhere in the world.

Does that make them indigenous of each and every place outside of the Arabian Peninsula?

Stop changing the meaning of the word Indigenous and you will start seeing the forrest beyond the trees.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> When yo do finally learn the meaning of the word Zionism, let us know.


Are you saying Ahad Ha'am wasn't a Zionist?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> UNISPAL is a Palestinian site.  Duh.


It's a UN site, you stupid bitch!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep inverting history.
> It does not matter.
> 
> Israel exists, and your rejection of it and all the Jews (most are Zionists ) will not make it disappear ever.
> 
> Your viciousness and that of the Muslims and Christians who hate Jews will make sure that Israel will remain strong, always.
> 
> 
> 
> You shoot at 8 month old babies; you shoot at people in wheelchairs; you shoot at people fishing; you shoot at people farming; yet you call me vicious?
Click to expand...

Nobody shot at the 8 month old baby, you slanderer, libelous individual.

You are a desperate hater of Jews, that is all.

Stop playing at knowing it all, wanting it all, being judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the Jewish people.

We have been there for the past 1700 years and seen it all.

Your lies are no different than any of the other lies and accusations meant to demean, delegitimize and destroy the Jews at any time for the past 1700 years.

Anyway you put it, you lose.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> UNISPAL is a Palestinian site.  Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a UN site, you stupid bitch!
Click to expand...

It says UN, just because.  Fool


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Yeah right...I'd suggest clown school.
> What academy would let You in in the first place?
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Egyptians-Masarwa clan
> 
> The Masarwa clan (in Arabic : Masarwa , in Hebrew transliterated from Mazarwa ) is one of the largest Arab families in Israel. *The name of the clan preserves its Egyptian origin*.
> 
> *History *
> The geographical proximity and the fact that the Land of Israel was for centuries under a regime centered in Egypt led to the almost permanent migration of peasants and Bedouins from Egypt to the Land of Israel. *Beginning in the 18th century , this immigration increased, culminating in the days of Ibrahim Pasha, who conquered Palestine in 1831 and ruled it until 1840 . Many of his soldiers had deserted and remained in the country, and general immigration had increased since his rule.* During the British Mandate many workers were brought from Egypt and some remained in Israel. The rise in the standard of living of the Arabs in the country also had a great influence on the Egyptian fellahs from the delta region, who suffered from great poverty and overcrowding.
> 
> *The Egyptian immigrants dispersed throughout the country, but mainly concentrated between Tulkarm and Gaza. *Some of the names of the villages and the family names of the Arabs in the country testify to the Egyptian origin or hint at a certain place of origin in Egypt. According to Yaakov Shimoni, this group is the largest of the foreign minorities among Muslims in Israel. [1] [2]
> 
> Q. What did You say about Arab migrations, and the rights of foreign occupants, again please?


You never watched the Oscars on TV?

You keep posting history that doesn't go past 1840.  Then you "act" like you just made a point!


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of the State of Israel had absolutely nothing to do with numbers.  It had everything to so with the Jewish People being the indigenous people of the area and having the right to recreate their nation on that land.
> 
> They did it legally, without an invasion and lots of weapons to scare off the rest of the population living there.
> 
> Something which cannot be said about the Arabs or other Muslims from the 7th century on.
> 
> Many of the Arab tribe leaders were on the side of Germany and the Ottoman Empire.  They lost.  Still, they got 99% of the Middle East to create Lebanon, Syria and Iraq under Arab control.
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs were just as indigenous as Jews.  You were told this in the Balfour Declaration.
Click to expand...


'Indigenous' is another word You don't understand.
Arabian tribes are as much indigenous to Judea Samaria as the average US citizen is indigenous to Milwaukee.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> When yo do finally learn the meaning of the word Zionism, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying Ahad Ha'am wasn't a Zionist?
Click to expand...

Definitely NOT.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> A people cannot be indigenous from two different places.
> 
> Kenyans cannot be indigenous of Sudan and vice-versa.
> 
> The Berbers cannot be indigenous of Egypt and the Copts indigenous of Morocco.
> 
> No, the Balfour Declaration did not say that non Jews were Indigenous of the land.
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, *it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."


You just said it, dumbass!

What does it say in bold?  What do you think... *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine *...refers to?  The Dutch?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Nobody shot at the 8 month old baby, you slanderer, libelous individual.
> 
> You are a desperate hater of Jews, that is all.
> 
> Stop playing at knowing it all, wanting it all, being judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the Jewish people.
> 
> We have been there for the past 1700 years and seen it all.
> 
> Your lies are no different than any of the other lies and accusations meant to demean, delegitimize and destroy the Jews at any time for the past 1700 years.
> 
> Anyway you put it, you lose.


The tear gas came from someone?  And it wasn't the mother. 
*IT* *WAS* *YOU!*


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right...I'd suggest clown school.
> What academy would let You in in the first place?
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Egyptians-Masarwa clan
> 
> The Masarwa clan (in Arabic : Masarwa , in Hebrew transliterated from Mazarwa ) is one of the largest Arab families in Israel. *The name of the clan preserves its Egyptian origin*.
> 
> *History *
> The geographical proximity and the fact that the Land of Israel was for centuries under a regime centered in Egypt led to the almost permanent migration of peasants and Bedouins from Egypt to the Land of Israel. *Beginning in the 18th century , this immigration increased, culminating in the days of Ibrahim Pasha, who conquered Palestine in 1831 and ruled it until 1840 . Many of his soldiers had deserted and remained in the country, and general immigration had increased since his rule.* During the British Mandate many workers were brought from Egypt and some remained in Israel. The rise in the standard of living of the Arabs in the country also had a great influence on the Egyptian fellahs from the delta region, who suffered from great poverty and overcrowding.
> 
> *The Egyptian immigrants dispersed throughout the country, but mainly concentrated between Tulkarm and Gaza. *Some of the names of the villages and the family names of the Arabs in the country testify to the Egyptian origin or hint at a certain place of origin in Egypt. According to Yaakov Shimoni, this group is the largest of the foreign minorities among Muslims in Israel. [1] [2]
> 
> Q. What did You say about Arab migrations, and the rights of foreign occupants, again please?
> 
> 
> 
> You never watched the Oscars on TV?
> 
> You keep posting history that doesn't go past 1840.  Then you "act" like you just made a point!
Click to expand...


Either You have a serious case of sclerosis, or You just can't deal with basic information.
Anyway You're crazy.

*Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*

Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.

** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/27420/arabimmigrationi26gott.pdf


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people cannot be indigenous from two different places.
> 
> Kenyans cannot be indigenous of Sudan and vice-versa.
> 
> The Berbers cannot be indigenous of Egypt and the Copts indigenous of Morocco.
> 
> No, the Balfour Declaration did not say that non Jews were Indigenous of the land.
> 
> "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, *it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine*, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> 
> 
> You just said it, dumbass!
> 
> What does it say in bold?  What do you think... *existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine *...refers to?  The Dutch?
Click to expand...

It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.

It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.

You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.

Ever.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody shot at the 8 month old baby, you slanderer, libelous individual.
> 
> You are a desperate hater of Jews, that is all.
> 
> Stop playing at knowing it all, wanting it all, being judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the Jewish people.
> 
> We have been there for the past 1700 years and seen it all.
> 
> Your lies are no different than any of the other lies and accusations meant to demean, delegitimize and destroy the Jews at any time for the past 1700 years.
> 
> Anyway you put it, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> The tear gas came from someone?  And it wasn't the mother.
> *IT* *WAS* *YOU!*
Click to expand...

Stop changing the topic of the thread.

Get back to it.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> 'Indigenous' is another word You don't understand.
> Arabian tribes are as much indigenous to Judea Samaria as the average US citizen is indigenous to Milwaukee.


Indigenous means native.  Write it down for future reference and stop playing goddamn word games!


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Definitely NOT.


How old are you?  Maybe you should ask an adult who he was?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Indigenous' is another word You don't understand.
> Arabian tribes are as much indigenous to Judea Samaria as the average US citizen is indigenous to Milwaukee.
> 
> 
> 
> Indigenous means native.  Write it down for future reference and stop playing goddamn word games!
Click to expand...


 You're PROUDLY ignorant.

*Learn:*


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Either You have a serious case of sclerosis, or You just can't deal with basic information.
> Anyway You're crazy.
> 
> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/27420/arabimmigrationi26gott.pdf


Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.  I posted official UN records and it is no secret there was a major Zionist migration around the turn of the last century.  Stop acting like it wasn't.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Indigenous' is another word You don't understand.
> Arabian tribes are as much indigenous to Judea Samaria as the average US citizen is indigenous to Milwaukee.
> 
> 
> 
> Indigenous means native.  Write it down for future reference and stop playing goddamn word games!
Click to expand...

500 First Nations in the USA are called Indigenous.

Calling any Europeans or Asians who came after 1492 indigenous is taking away the indigenous rights of those first Nations.

The Jews are the First Nation of Ancient Canaan, aka, Israel, Judea, Palestine.

Being born on the land for the past 1400 years, since the Arab Muslim invasion means that some are born on the land, maybe even be called Native of the land, but will never, ever make them the Indigenous First Nation of the ancient land of Canaan, as the Jewish people have always been.

Being born in Spain, Portugal, USA, etc, does not take away the indigenous rights they have as the people who formed the Nation of Israel and came from that area.

Got it now?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.
> 
> You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.
> 
> Ever.


You're playing word games.  The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights.  You have no right, to strip them of their rights.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either You have a serious case of sclerosis, or You just can't deal with basic information.
> Anyway You're crazy.
> 
> *Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel.*
> 
> Arab immigration into Palestine, and specifically into pre-State Israel during the census period 1922-1931 reflects, to some degree, the different levels of economic activity within Palestine and between it and the contiguous Arab States. Arab immigration accounted for 38.7 percent of the total increase in Arab settled population in pre-State Israel, and constituted 11.8 percent of its 1931 population. Although less numerically than the Jewish immigration during the period, the significance of Arab immigration is nonetheless emphasized by its comparison with the Jewish population inflov;. Arab immigration composed 36.8 percent of the total immigration into pre-State Israel. The situation in non-Israel Palestine was somewhat different. There, Arab migration v;as positive, but inconsequential.
> 
> ** 54,790 Arabs* migrated just in the short period of the Mandate.
> 
> https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/27420/arabimmigrationi26gott.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.  I posted official UN records and it is no secret there was a major Zionist migration around the turn of the last century.  Stop acting like it wasn't.
Click to expand...

So what if there was a major migration of Jews back into their ancient homeland?

It is their ancient homeland, and they have always returned to it through the centuries.

At the end of the 19th century more than ever due to what was happening in Europe and it not being possible anymore for Jews to stay in that continent.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Stop changing the topic of the thread.
> 
> Get back to it.


Don't call me vicious when you're the one making up bullshit reasons to kill people.  Just like you did at the time of the Mandate.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> You're PROUDLY ignorant.
> 
> *Learn:*


I didn't say Jews weren't indigenous.  Zionists are not.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.
> 
> You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing word games.  The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights.  You have no right, to strip them of their rights.
Click to expand...

You are not playing word games.  You are really ignorant.

You play the game of numbers.

Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.

Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.

Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're PROUDLY ignorant.
> 
> *Learn:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say Jews weren't indigenous.  Zionists are not.
Click to expand...

You could not prove that if your life depended on it.

You know very well what the word Zionism means.  Look at my signature or Susha's to refresh your memory.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> 500 First Nations in the USA are called Indigenous.
> 
> Calling any Europeans or Asians who came after 1492 indigenous is taking away the indigenous rights of those first Nations.
> 
> The Jews are the First Nation of Ancient Canaan, aka, Israel, Judea, Palestine.
> 
> Being born on the land for the past 1400 years, since the Arab Muslim invasion means that some are born on the land, maybe even be called Native of the land, but will never, ever make them the Indigenous First Nation of the ancient land of Canaan, as the Jewish people have always been.
> 
> Being born in Spain, Portugal, USA, etc, does not take away the indigenous rights they have as the people who formed the Nation of Israel and came from that area.
> 
> Got it now?


I don't know about you, but I'm having fun!

Did you know the Cavs beat the Celtics tonight?  Anytime the Celtics lose, is a good day for me.  Fuck everyone in Beantown.

Embrace the horror, you know I'm right and you are wrong?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> So what if there was a major migration of Jews back into their ancient homeland?
> 
> It is their ancient homeland, and they have always returned to it through the centuries.
> 
> At the end of the 19th century more than ever due to what was happening in Europe and it not being possible anymore for Jews to stay in that continent.


It is the Arabs homeland just as much as yours.  Most of those Arabs are converted Jews anyway.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> You are not playing word games.  You are really ignorant.
> 
> You play the game of numbers.
> 
> Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.
> 
> Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.
> 
> Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.


Palestinian-Arabs are the direct descedents of the Israelites.  The Diaspora never happened.  It's an urban myth.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 500 First Nations in the USA are called Indigenous.
> 
> Calling any Europeans or Asians who came after 1492 indigenous is taking away the indigenous rights of those first Nations.
> 
> The Jews are the First Nation of Ancient Canaan, aka, Israel, Judea, Palestine.
> 
> Being born on the land for the past 1400 years, since the Arab Muslim invasion means that some are born on the land, maybe even be called Native of the land, but will never, ever make them the Indigenous First Nation of the ancient land of Canaan, as the Jewish people have always been.
> 
> Being born in Spain, Portugal, USA, etc, does not take away the indigenous rights they have as the people who formed the Nation of Israel and came from that area.
> 
> Got it now?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but I'm having fun!
> 
> Did you know the Cavs beat the Celtics tonight?  Anytime the Celtics lose, is a good day for me.  Fuck everyone in Beantown.
> 
> Embrace the horror, you know I'm right and you are wrong?
Click to expand...

What you are is sick.  
It is very clear that you are having "fun" being abusive to what you believe are "criminals" who would kill people at will.

What you believe, or any Jew hater believes, does not matter anymore.

The Jewish Nation has a part of its ancient land back and it is making it blossom, while all the invading Arabs can do is cry and scream Alahu Akbar every time they want to kill Jews.

Israel has won every war against it.  It stands tall, while - as so many Arabs are realizing - the Arab nations are stuck in the 7th century.

Am Israel Chai.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> You could not prove that if your life depended on it.
> 
> You know very well what the word Zionism means.  Look at my signature or Susha's to refresh your memory.


Are you saying there was no Zionist migration?

Look at my signature and you will see I'm a nice man!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what if there was a major migration of Jews back into their ancient homeland?
> 
> It is their ancient homeland, and they have always returned to it through the centuries.
> 
> At the end of the 19th century more than ever due to what was happening in Europe and it not being possible anymore for Jews to stay in that continent.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Arabs homeland just as much as yours.  Most of those Arabs are converted Jews anyway.
Click to expand...

You dream, again.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could not prove that if your life depended on it.
> 
> You know very well what the word Zionism means.  Look at my signature or Susha's to refresh your memory.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying there was no Zionist migration?
> 
> Look at my signature and you will see I'm a nice man!
Click to expand...

Here you are again.  
Playing your worthless games.

yawnnnnn


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> What you are is sick.
> It is very clear that you are having "fun" being abusive to what you believe are "criminals" who would kill people at will.
> 
> What you believe, or any Jew hater believes, does not matter anymore.
> 
> The Jewish Nation has a part of its ancient land back and it is making it blossom, while all the invading Arabs can do is cry and scream Alahu Akbar every time they want to kill Jews.
> 
> Israel has won every war against it.  It stands tall, while - as so many Arabs are realizing - the Arab nations are stuck in the 7th century.
> 
> Am Israel Chai.


I have to go, so I'll leave you with this, my little conchita...


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not playing word games.  You are really ignorant.
> 
> You play the game of numbers.
> 
> Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.
> 
> Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.
> 
> Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Arabs are the direct descedents of the Israelites.  The Diaspora never happened.  It's an urban myth.
Click to expand...

See ?  
You really are off your rocker.

No lie is big enough for Jew haters to tell.

Old wive's tale, started only after 1948.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're PROUDLY ignorant.
> 
> *Learn:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say Jews weren't indigenous.  Zionists are not.
Click to expand...


So native Jews who supported Zionism all of a sudden become non-indigenous?
What about those Jews who cried for help during the Arab Pogroms that initiated Zionism?

Walk me through that new level of CRAZY


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um. Could it be because you also include the words:  asshole, narcissistic, racist, apartheid, hostile and violent when describing Jews?  Tough one.  But I think that could be it.
> 
> 
> 
> Those words are for Zionists, not indigenous Jews.
Click to expand...


Um.  Yeah.  There are "good" Jews (who don't want Jewish self-determination and sovereignty on their own ancestral and historical lands and are happy to be dhimmis) and "bad" Jews who want (the HORROR!) the same rights as other human beings.  When I call you out on your flagrant disregard of Jewish history and Jewish rights, you dig in to your nasty little hole.  The whole "1967" lines is a farce with you.  A sugar coating on your ugly rejection of Jews as a people.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Zionism uses Judaism much the same way a cheap whore uses a tampon.  To be used when needed, then discarded in the trash when it is no longer useful.



Dude, you really need to pick up your game.  Are you claiming that "real" Jews somehow use tampons differently than "fake" Jews?  What?  Do they keep them in?  Store them in a box in the cupboard?  Pass them down to their grandkids?  

Now, if you wanted to make a better analogy, you would pick something less, you know, universally useful.  A lipstick might work better.  "...the same way a cheap whore takes off her lipstick when her husband comes home."

Just helping you out...


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights.  You have no right, to strip them of their rights.



No one is stripping the Arab Palestinians of their rights.  (Except their own violence). 

What are their rights?  List them.  Your call.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.
> 
> You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing word games.  The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights.  You have no right, to strip them of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not playing word games.  You are really ignorant.
> 
> You play the game of numbers.
> 
> Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.
> 
> Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.
> 
> Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.
Click to expand...

Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality. You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.
> 
> You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing word games.  The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights.  You have no right, to strip them of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not playing word games.  You are really ignorant.
> 
> You play the game of numbers.
> 
> Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.
> 
> Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.
> 
> Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality. You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.
Click to expand...


So, you’re suggesting that Arab-Moslem is now a nationality?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.
> 
> You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing word games.  The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights.  You have no right, to strip them of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not playing word games.  You are really ignorant.
> 
> You play the game of numbers.
> 
> Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.
> 
> Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.
> 
> Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality. You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you’re suggesting that Arab-Moslem is now a nationality?
Click to expand...

Which Arab Muslims?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means, NON INDIGENOUS population of the area in the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> It meant the Arab Muslims and Christians, the Bedouins, the Druze, the Turks.
> 
> You will not find one tourist, historian, the Ottomans or the British who will refer to any of the above as "Indigenous" to that land.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing word games.  The fact is, there were 3/4 of a million Arabs residents at the time of the Zionist migration and they have rights.  You have no right, to strip them of their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not playing word games.  You are really ignorant.
> 
> You play the game of numbers.
> 
> Numbers are more important than who the descendants of the ancient Israelites were.
> 
> Definitely not the Arabs, much less those who only in 1964 chose to adopt the word Palestinians as their nationality.
> 
> Still and always, they are Arabs, from Arabia, who from the 7th Century on went on to conquer quite a lot of land, lost it several times, but it does not ever make them the indigenous people of Morocco, Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, South Spain, or anywhere else they might claim as theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality. You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you’re suggesting that Arab-Moslem is now a nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arab Muslims?
Click to expand...


Arabs-Moslems.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality.



Who said?
It's up to the indigenous people to decide how it works.



P F Tinmore said:


> You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.



It's up to the indigenous people to decide who belongs to the ancestry and who doesn't.

For You 400  years of presence is enough to use the word "ancestry", for Jews with 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel - those are merely recent guests.

Thus the land flourished when her true children returned.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said?
> It's up to the indigenous people to decide how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the indigenous people to decide who belongs to the ancestry and who doesn't.
> 
> For You 400  years of presence is enough to use the word "ancestry", for Jews with 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel - those are merely recent guests.
Click to expand...

What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said?
> It's up to the indigenous people to decide how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the indigenous people to decide who belongs to the ancestry and who doesn't.
> 
> For You 400  years of presence is enough to use the word "ancestry", for Jews with 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel - those are merely recent guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?
Click to expand...


This is by definition a self contradicting question.

As in any ethno-religious group,  existence of a Jewish community is a function of heritage and ancestry. No one can stay a Jew for more than 3-4 generations if they don't merry and live withing the community. Being a small persecuted tribe, stying tight together was a question of survival.
But anyway this is for the indigenous tribe to decide who belongs and who doesn't.

P F Tinmore
All I'm saying is look at what the land itself shows You,
for whom did it keep her best gifts? Those are her true children.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sharing a religion is different than sharing a nationality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said?
> It's up to the indigenous people to decide how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot "return" to a place where you have no ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's up to the indigenous people to decide who belongs to the ancestry and who doesn't.
> 
> For You 400  years of presence is enough to use the word "ancestry", for Jews with 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel - those are merely recent guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?
Click to expand...


What about the Cave of Machpelah/ Tomb of the Patriarchs?  That belongs to all Jews.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?



All Jews have ancestors from there.  Or else they wouldn't be Jews.  They wouldn't be able to carry the traditions from generation to generation to generation.  You wouldn't be able to sit at a table for Shabbat in nearly any country in the world and understand it.  It is the holding of the traditions and the language and the rituals and the clothing and the legal system and the culture that tells you whether or not a person is Jewish.  

The idea that some mass conversion somewhere at some time is "proof" that most Jews aren't really Jews is an invention of those trying to deny Jewish people rights.  Its trying to cut people off from their ancestors, using some toxic form of "blood purity".  

But if you really want to play that game, you have to play it with everyone.  Why don't we test everyone's "blood purity" and see if they really do have ancestors from that place?  Your Lebanese Christian farmers which you are so fond of bringing up, for example.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Jews who have no ancestors from there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Jews have ancestors from there.  Or else they wouldn't be Jews.  They wouldn't be able to carry the traditions from generation to generation to generation.  You wouldn't be able to sit at a table for Shabbat in nearly any country in the world and understand it.  It is the holding of the traditions and the language and the rituals and the clothing and the legal system and the culture that tells you whether or not a person is Jewish.
> 
> The idea that some mass conversion somewhere at some time is "proof" that most Jews aren't really Jews is an invention of those trying to deny Jewish people rights.  Its trying to cut people off from their ancestors, using some toxic form of "blood purity".
> 
> But if you really want to play that game, you have to play it with everyone.  Why don't we test everyone's "blood purity" and see if they really do have ancestors from that place?  Your Lebanese Christian farmers which you are so fond of bringing up, for example.
Click to expand...



"All Jews have ancestors from there.  Or else they wouldn't be Jews."

That's crazy.  That's like saying all Christians have ancestors in Palestine.  Neither an Inuit Jew or an Inuit Christian has ancestors from the Middle East.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> You dream, again.


It's not dreams, its genetics.  Just ask Shlomo Sand.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Here you are again.
> Playing your worthless games.
> 
> yawnnnnn


Just answer the question.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> See ?
> You really are off your rocker.
> 
> No lie is big enough for Jew haters to tell.
> 
> Old wive's tale, started only after 1948.


Why would I hate Jews?

As for the Diaspora, how come there is no physical evidence to be found?


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> So native Jews who supported Zionism all of a sudden become non-indigenous?
> What about those Jews who cried for help during the Arab Pogroms that initiated Zionism?
> 
> Walk me through that new level of CRAZY


You got a problem with comprehension.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Um.  Yeah.  There are "good" Jews (who don't want Jewish self-determination and sovereignty on their own ancestral and historical lands and are happy to be dhimmis) and "bad" Jews who want (the HORROR!) the same rights as other human beings.  When I call you out on your flagrant disregard of Jewish history and Jewish rights, you dig in to your nasty little hole.  The whole "1967" lines is a farce with you.  A sugar coating on your ugly rejection of Jews as a people.


The Jewish left are good; the Jewish right can go to hell!


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Dude, you really need to pick up your game.  Are you claiming that "real" Jews somehow use tampons differently than "fake" Jews?  What?  Do they keep them in?  Store them in a box in the cupboard?  Pass them down to their grandkids?
> 
> Now, if you wanted to make a better analogy, you would pick something less, you know, universally useful.  A lipstick might work better.  "...the same way a cheap whore takes off her lipstick when her husband comes home."
> 
> Just helping you out...


Zionists are using Judaism to advance a political ideology, much like the bullshit neocons in this country use Christianity.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> That's crazy.  That's like saying all Christians have ancestors in Palestine.



No, it is not the same at all.  In fact, its the near opposite of what I am saying.  The marker of indigeneity is to hold and pass down the culture, traditions, language, religious faith, and all the other markers of a specific peoples.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> As for the Diaspora, how come there is no physical evidence to be found?



You mean evidence like Jews living in the Diaspora?


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> You mean evidence like Jews living in the Diaspora?


I mean there is no archaeological evidence that it occurred.  Not to mention the logistics in moving a population that large across the desert.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean evidence like Jews living in the Diaspora?
> 
> 
> 
> I mean there is no archaeological evidence that it occurred.  Not to mention the logistics in moving a population that large across the desert.
Click to expand...


Why would you need archaeological evidence that the Diaspora occurred when the evidence of its occurrence is in the clear existence of Jews in the Diaspora.


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Why would you need archaeological evidence that the Diaspora occurred when the evidence of its occurrence is in the clear existence of Jews in the Diaspora.


You need archaeological evidence to prove there was an actual exodus.  And quite frankly, I find it hard to believe the Egyptians had the technology or capabilities at the time, to move a large population of people (with all their things), across the open desert.  Not to mention, why would any local government transfer a large portion of their work force away from the community.  I mean, who would do the work, once they left?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you need archaeological evidence that the Diaspora occurred when the evidence of its occurrence is in the clear existence of Jews in the Diaspora.
> 
> 
> 
> You need archaeological evidence to prove there was an actual exodus.  And quite frankly, I find it hard to believe the Egyptians had the technology or capabilities at the time, to move a large population of people (with all their things), across the open desert.  Not to mention, why would any local government transfer a large portion of their work force away from the community.  I mean, who would do the work, once they left?
Click to expand...



You try really hard to miss the point, don't You?
No one has to prove the exodus from Egypt to show that Jews have 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel. This is the most evident record in history of a connection between a nation and land.


----------



## Shusha

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you need archaeological evidence that the Diaspora occurred when the evidence of its occurrence is in the clear existence of Jews in the Diaspora.
> 
> 
> 
> You need archaeological evidence to prove there was an actual exodus.  And quite frankly, I find it hard to believe the Egyptians had the technology or capabilities at the time, to move a large population of people (with all their things), across the open desert.  Not to mention, why would any local government transfer a large portion of their work force away from the community.  I mean, who would do the work, once they left?
Click to expand...


Oh!  You mean the Exodus from Egypt, not the Diaspora, which is self-evident.  

Why would we need to prove the Exodus in order to prove the existence of the Jewish people?  There is plenty of evidence for the latter, not the least of which being, living actual Jews.  

As for why there is no archaeological evidence for it?  Obviously, it didn't happen in the way it was written in Torah.  Torah does not exist as a book of literal history.  Its a book of faith.  The stories are intended to reveal something about us and our relationship with the Divine.  My guess is that we are looking for evidence either in the wrong place or in the wrong time.  Egypt had considerable influence at certain times and was very much larger than it is today.  It won territory, lost it, won it back.  Numbers tend to be the least reliable parts of stories -- spans of time, numbers of people, ages of men.  They tend to be largely symbolic.  In all likelihood, the Exodus was much smaller, much shorter and much more local than is given in the story.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you need archaeological evidence that the Diaspora occurred when the evidence of its occurrence is in the clear existence of Jews in the Diaspora.
> 
> 
> 
> You need archaeological evidence to prove there was an actual exodus.  And quite frankly, I find it hard to believe the Egyptians had the technology or capabilities at the time, to move a large population of people (with all their things), across the open desert.  Not to mention, why would any local government transfer a large portion of their work force away from the community.  I mean, who would do the work, once they left?
Click to expand...

Where in the Torah is it written that it was the Egyptians who moved , transferred,  a large portion of their work force?

May I guess that you read some translation of the Torah which has nothing to do with what is actually written in the Hebrew Torah, due to possible very bad translation, or even worse, any of the translators decision as to what should be written there?

Or have you come up with your own version of events as to what is written in the Torah?

Saying that the Egyptian Pharaohs actually planned that mass exodus of Jews, or anyone else......


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> You try really hard to miss the point, don't You?
> No one has to prove the exodus from Egypt to show that Jews have 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel. This is the most evident record in history of a connection between a nation and land.


And those Jews are now the Palestinians you persecute.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You try really hard to miss the point, don't You?
> No one has to prove the exodus from Egypt to show that Jews have 3000 years of presence in the land of Israel. This is the most evident record in history of a connection between a nation and land.
> 
> 
> 
> And those Jews are now the Palestinians you persecute.
Click to expand...

At want point during the last 3000 people, the Jewish people become Arabs from Arabia?


----------



## Billo_Really

Shusha said:


> Oh!  You mean the Exodus from Egypt, not the Diaspora, which is self-evident.
> 
> Why would we need to prove the Exodus in order to prove the existence of the Jewish people?  There is plenty of evidence for the latter, not the least of which being, living actual Jews.
> 
> As for why there is no archaeological evidence for it?  Obviously, it didn't happen in the way it was written in Torah.  Torah does not exist as a book of literal history.  Its a book of faith.  The stories are intended to reveal something about us and our relationship with the Divine.  My guess is that we are looking for evidence either in the wrong place or in the wrong time.  Egypt had considerable influence at certain times and was very much larger than it is today.  It won territory, lost it, won it back.  Numbers tend to be the least reliable parts of stories -- spans of time, numbers of people, ages of men.  They tend to be largely symbolic.  In all likelihood, the Exodus was much smaller, much shorter and much more local than is given in the story.


If you want to bring up the Torah, then I ask you, "Why are Zionists breaking The Three Oaths"?  It is my understanding Jews are to remain in exile, until God comes back down to earth.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Where in the Torah is it written that it was the Egyptians who moved , transferred,  a large portion of their work force?
> 
> May I guess that you read some translation of the Torah which has nothing to do with what is actually written in the Hebrew Torah, due to possible very bad translation, or even worse, any of the translators decision as to what should be written there?
> 
> Or have you come up with your own version of events as to what is written in the Torah?
> 
> Saying that the Egyptian Pharaohs actually planned that mass exodus of Jews, or anyone else......


Oh, shut up!


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> At want point during the last 3000 people, the Jewish people become Arabs from Arabia?


They're not from Arabia.  They converted during Muslim rule.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Torah is it written that it was the Egyptians who moved , transferred,  a large portion of their work force?
> 
> May I guess that you read some translation of the Torah which has nothing to do with what is actually written in the Hebrew Torah, due to possible very bad translation, or even worse, any of the translators decision as to what should be written there?
> 
> Or have you come up with your own version of events as to what is written in the Torah?
> 
> Saying that the Egyptian Pharaohs actually planned that mass exodus of Jews, or anyone else......
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, shut up!
Click to expand...


The Arabs calling themselves Palestinians could barely pronounce the 1st letter of the word.Funny thing, Jews returning from Arab countries knew exactly what 'Palestine' means, Arabs still don't.

Not too many Jews with the surname "the Egyptian", but a very common one among the Palestinians.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> At want point during the last 3000 people, the Jewish people become Arabs from Arabia?
> 
> 
> 
> They're not from Arabia.  They converted during Muslim rule.
Click to expand...


From the donkey's mouth:


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> The Arabs calling themselves Palestinians could barely pronounce the 1st letter of the word.Funny thing, Jews returning from Arab countries knew exactly what 'Palestine' means, Arabs still don't.
> 
> Not too many Jews with the surname "the Egyptian", but a very common one among the Palestinians.


You expect people to take you seriously?


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> From the donkey's mouth:


So you believe in asses?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs calling themselves Palestinians could barely pronounce the 1st letter of the word.Funny thing, Jews returning from Arab countries knew exactly what 'Palestine' means, Arabs still don't.
> 
> Not too many Jews with the surname "the Egyptian", but a very common one among the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> You expect people to take you seriously?
Click to expand...

The Arabs do.

And they are the ones who count.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> The Arabs do.
> 
> And they are the ones who count.


And so would you, if you ever made a lucid point.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs calling themselves Palestinians could barely pronounce the 1st letter of the word.Funny thing, Jews returning from Arab countries knew exactly what 'Palestine' means, Arabs still don't.
> 
> Not too many Jews with the surname "the Egyptian", but a very common one among the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> You expect people to take you seriously?
Click to expand...

Everything I said is basic common knowledge.
What's important are facts, and You weren't capable to refute any.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Everything I said is basic common knowledge.
> What's important are facts, and You weren't capable to refute any.


You're broadstroking Arabs as not knowing what Palestine means.  That's not a fact!  That's your own personal, racist opinion.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I said is basic common knowledge.
> What's important are facts, and You weren't capable to refute any.
> 
> 
> 
> You're broadstroking Arabs as not knowing what Palestine means.  That's not a fact!  That's your own personal, racist opinion.
Click to expand...

Arabs know very well what Palestine is.
It is a region they conquered in the 7th Century CE which they refused to have the indigenous people, the Jews, be sovereign over around 100 years.

Mesopotamia, Syria, any area the Arab Muslims conquered is fine, if there is a Muslim being sovereign over it.
Otherwise, their Arab Honor is bruised, as it has been since WWI.

Muslims continue to long for Andalusia and Vienna.

How to make their dreams come true?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I said is basic common knowledge.
> What's important are facts, and You weren't capable to refute any.
> 
> 
> 
> You're broadstroking Arabs as not knowing what Palestine means.  That's not a fact!  That's your own personal, racist opinion.
Click to expand...

 Pretty funny when those who whine about invasion chose to identify with the word "Invaders" as their national identity. It's like a mouse complaining about cheese. 

Can You contradict my observation?
If Arabs knew what the word meant, they wouldn't appropriate it.
But then again Arabs don't know the meanings of the names in the land because it's not their homeland, but Jews who return from abroad - do, because it's their ancestral land.

Couldn't be more simple than that.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Pretty funny when those who whine about invasion chose to identify with the word "Invaders" as their national identity. It's like a mouse complaining about cheese.
> 
> Can You contradict my observation?
> If Arabs knew what the word meant, they wouldn't appropriate it.
> But then again Arabs don't know the meanings of the names in the land because it's not their homeland, but Jews who return from abroad - do, because it's their ancestral land.
> 
> Couldn't be more simple than that.


People living there for hundreds of years, it is not their homeland.  People who migrated in from somewhere else, it is their homeland.

You are a fucking fruit loop!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny when those who whine about invasion chose to identify with the word "Invaders" as their national identity. It's like a mouse complaining about cheese.
> 
> Can You contradict my observation?
> If Arabs knew what the word meant, they wouldn't appropriate it.
> But then again Arabs don't know the meanings of the names in the land because it's not their homeland, but Jews who return from abroad - do, because it's their ancestral land.
> 
> Couldn't be more simple than that.
> 
> 
> 
> People living there for hundreds of years, it is not their homeland.  People who migrated in from somewhere else, it is their homeland.
> 
> You are a fucking fruit loop!
Click to expand...

No, Billo.

People who have lived there (Ancient Canaan ) for over 3500 years and created a Nation, even if some of its people went out of the area willingly, or were forced to leave......they are still the indigenous people of that land and have every right to return to it ANYTIME they want, as they had been doing always.

People who lived somewhere else ( outside Ancient Canaan ) 3500 years ago, and made their tribes, nations in that area, and left that area to conquer outside of it 1400 years, and came to live in all of those areas they conquered, whether they got to stay in those areas or were expelled from any one of them - as they were from Spain, and later other areas of Europe.......

.....Still, none of those areas they conquered are considered their indigenous homeland.

ONLY those who were there BEFORE those people came and conquered all of those areas of Europe, North Africa, Asia Minor can call those areas their ancient homelands.

The ancient homeland of the invading groups of Arabs, continue to be the place where they first came from.

It is called, still and forever  .....  Arabia.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> No, Billo.
> 
> People who have lived there (Ancient Canaan ) for over 3500 years and created a Nation, even if some of its people went out of the area willingly, or were forced to leave......they are still the indigenous people of that land and have every right to return to it ANYTIME they want, as they had been doing always.
> 
> People who lived somewhere else ( outside Ancient Canaan ) 3500 years ago, and made their tribes, nations in that area, and left that area to conquer outside of it 1400 years, and came to live in all of those areas they conquered, whether they got to stay in those areas or were expelled from any one of them - as they were from Spain, and later other areas of Europe.......
> 
> .....Still, none of those areas they conquered are considered their indigenous homeland.
> 
> ONLY those who were there BEFORE those people came and conquered all of those areas of Europe, North Africa, Asia Minor can call those areas their ancient homelands.
> 
> The ancient homeland of the invading groups of Arabs, continue to be the place where they first came from.
> 
> It is called, still and forever  .....  Arabia.


These are your words...

_"...even if some of its people went out of the area willingly, or were forced to leave......they are still the indigenous people of that land and have every right to return to it ANYTIME they want, as they had been doing always."_​
Are you remembering your words?

_Roughly 750,000 [Palestinians] were driven from their homes or fled in terror following massacres of Palestinian civilians by Jewish militias._​
Still remembering?

_By their numbers and overwhelming ownership of land, Palestinian Muslims and Christians impeded the foundation of a Jewish state. Israel expelled them, seized or destroyed their homes and villages, and has violently barred their return to this day—most recently from the Gaza gulag._​If you have the right of return after 3500 years, then so do they after 70 years.

Fucking hypocrite!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Billo.
> 
> People who have lived there (Ancient Canaan ) for over 3500 years and created a Nation, even if some of its people went out of the area willingly, or were forced to leave......they are still the indigenous people of that land and have every right to return to it ANYTIME they want, as they had been doing always.
> 
> People who lived somewhere else ( outside Ancient Canaan ) 3500 years ago, and made their tribes, nations in that area, and left that area to conquer outside of it 1400 years, and came to live in all of those areas they conquered, whether they got to stay in those areas or were expelled from any one of them - as they were from Spain, and later other areas of Europe.......
> 
> .....Still, none of those areas they conquered are considered their indigenous homeland.
> 
> ONLY those who were there BEFORE those people came and conquered all of those areas of Europe, North Africa, Asia Minor can call those areas their ancient homelands.
> 
> The ancient homeland of the invading groups of Arabs, continue to be the place where they first came from.
> 
> It is called, still and forever  .....  Arabia.
> 
> 
> 
> These are your words...
> 
> _"...even if some of its people went out of the area willingly, or were forced to leave......they are still the indigenous people of that land and have every right to return to it ANYTIME they want, as they had been doing always."_​
> Are you remembering your words?
> 
> _Roughly 750,000 [Palestinians] were driven from their homes or fled in terror following massacres of Palestinian civilians by Jewish militias._​
> Still remembering?
> 
> _By their numbers and overwhelming ownership of land, Palestinian Muslims and Christians impeded the foundation of a Jewish state. Israel expelled them, seized or destroyed their homes and villages, and has violently barred their return to this day—most recently from the Gaza gulag._​If you have the right of return after 3500 years, then so do they after 70 years.
> 
> Fucking hypocrite!
Click to expand...

Clearly, English is not your first language, and decency is not your second one.

I was very clear as to what I wrote, but you do insist that the Arabs who have chosen to appropriate the word Palestine (Invaders) to themselves, have the same right of return to all of Israel as the Jewish people who are the indigenous people of the land.

You want to give the Ancient Land of Canaan, all of it, which is the indigenous homeland of the Jewish People,  to the invaders from the Land of Arabia.

No deal.

They have every right to return to their homeland.

Arabia awaits all of the Arabs who want to return.

Next Year in Mecca.

The Jewish people are on their homeland.

As it is always said amongst the Jewish Nation, Next Year in Jerusalem.

We are home.

Am Israel Chai.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny when those who whine about invasion chose to identify with the word "Invaders" as their national identity. It's like a mouse complaining about cheese.
> 
> Can You contradict my observation?
> If Arabs knew what the word meant, they wouldn't appropriate it.
> But then again Arabs don't know the meanings of the names in the land because it's not their homeland, but Jews who return from abroad - do, because it's their ancestral land.
> 
> Couldn't be more simple than that.
> 
> 
> 
> People living there for hundreds of years, it is not their homeland.  People who migrated in from somewhere else, it is their homeland.
> 
> You are a fucking fruit loop!
Click to expand...


What do You call a people who after hundreds of years of colonization and occupation 
insist on calling themselves "INVADERS"?

People who don't know the original names of the places in the land, turn their asses to the capital and their faces to Arabia - it's not their homeland, it's their colony.


----------



## Sixties Fan

I am starting  a conversation as to what happened in 1920, as "ILoveIsrael" has suggested.

Tel Hai is a historic site that commemorates the heroism of the Hula Valley pioneers who stubbornly defended their homes to the death. Nearby Kiryat Shmona is named after the eight (Shmona in Hebrew) pioneers who perished here.

Tel Hai was founded in 1916 by a group of Hashomer guards. Hashomer was an organization that believed that only Jews should guard Jewish settlements. After the First World War, Tel Hai and other Galilee settlements were transferred to French rule and suffered in the Arab revolt against the French. In January 1920 two Tel Hai members were killed in an Arab attack, and on the 11th of Adar, 5680 (March 1, 1920), six more died when hundreds of Arabs attacked the settlement. Among the fallen was Yosef Trumpeldor, the guards’ young commander.

Tel Hai

------------

Does anyone have anymore information about it?


----------



## Sixties Fan

*Tel Hai* (Hebrew: תֵּל חַי‬, meaning "Hill of Life" in Hebrew; *Tal-ha* in Arabic) is a name of the former Jewish settlement in northern Galilee, the site of an early battle between Jews and Arabs heralding the growing civil conflict, and of a monument, tourist attraction, and a college. It is currently part of kibbutz Kfar Giladi.

The Battle of Tel Hai on 1 March 1920, which gave Tel Hai its fame, was significant, from a Jewish perspective, far beyond the small number of civil combatants on either side - mainly due to its influence on Israeli culture, both inspiring an enduring heroic story and profoundly influencing the military of the Yishuv and political strategies over several decades.

In retrospect, it can be regarded as the first military engagement between the Zionists and the Arabs, though at the time itself combatants on either side did not regard it in such terms.

(full article online)

Tel Hai - Wikipedia


----------



## Sixties Fan

This Week in Israeli History: Joseph Trumpeldor and the Battle of Tel Hai - Blogs - Jerusalem Post


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Clearly, English is not your first language, and decency is not your second one.
> 
> I was very clear as to what I wrote, but you do insist that the Arabs who have chosen to appropriate the word Palestine (Invaders) to themselves, have the same right of return to all of Israel as the Jewish people who are the indigenous people of the land.
> 
> You want to give the Ancient Land of Canaan, all of it, which is the indigenous homeland of the Jewish People,  to the invaders from the Land of Arabia.
> 
> No deal.
> 
> They have every right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Arabia awaits all of the Arabs who want to return.
> 
> Next Year in Mecca.
> 
> The Jewish people are on their homeland.
> 
> As it is always said amongst the Jewish Nation, Next Year in Jerusalem.
> 
> We are home.
> 
> Am Israel Chai.


They're not the invaders, you are!  You are the ones who moved into the area.  They were the people already living there.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, English is not your first language, and decency is not your second one.
> 
> I was very clear as to what I wrote, but you do insist that the Arabs who have chosen to appropriate the word Palestine (Invaders) to themselves, have the same right of return to all of Israel as the Jewish people who are the indigenous people of the land.
> 
> You want to give the Ancient Land of Canaan, all of it, which is the indigenous homeland of the Jewish People,  to the invaders from the Land of Arabia.
> 
> No deal.
> 
> They have every right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Arabia awaits all of the Arabs who want to return.
> 
> Next Year in Mecca.
> 
> The Jewish people are on their homeland.
> 
> As it is always said amongst the Jewish Nation, Next Year in Jerusalem.
> 
> We are home.
> 
> Am Israel Chai.
> 
> 
> 
> They're not the invaders, you are!  You are the ones who moved into the area.  They were the people already living there.
Click to expand...

You are never going to be able to prove it in court.

Am Israel Chai!!

The People Of Israel Live !!


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> What do You call a people who after hundreds of years of colonization and occupation
> insist on calling themselves "INVADERS"?
> 
> People who don't know the original names of the places in the land, turn their asses to the capital and their faces to Arabia - it's not their homeland, it's their colony.


Who gives a shit what they call themselves?  That doesn't give you the right to take their homes.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do You call a people who after hundreds of years of colonization and occupation
> insist on calling themselves "INVADERS"?
> 
> People who don't know the original names of the places in the land, turn their asses to the capital and their faces to Arabia - it's not their homeland, it's their colony.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit what they call themselves?  That doesn't give you the right to take their homes.
Click to expand...

Their homes are in the Arabian Peninsula.

Arabs =  Arabia Peninsula

No Jew has stepped in the Arabian Peninsula since two tribes were expelled by Mohammad in the 7th Century.

The Arabs are more than free to go home to their ancestral Jew Free land.

No one is keeping them from it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> You are never going to be able to prove it in court.
> 
> Am Israel Chai!!
> 
> The People Of Israel Live !!


It already has been.  Almost 400 UN resolutions say so.  Every country on the planet thinks so.  You're the only ones who disagree.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are never going to be able to prove it in court.
> 
> Am Israel Chai!!
> 
> The People Of Israel Live !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It already has been.  Almost 400 UN resolutions say so.  Every country on the planet thinks so.  You're the only ones who disagree.
Click to expand...

Resolutions written by Rabbid Jew haters are worthless on the paper and ink they are wasted.

Israel has no obligation to follow ANY of the self aggrandized "resolutions"  Rabbid Christians and Muslims have decided on in order to destroy Israel.

You continue to exaggerate about the "every country".

Take it down a peg


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Their homes are in the Arabian Peninsula.
> 
> Arabs =  Arabia Peninsula
> 
> No Jew has stepped in the Arabian Peninsula since two tribes were expelled by Mohammad in the 7th Century.
> 
> The Arabs are more than free to go home to their ancestral Jew Free land.
> 
> No one is keeping them from it.


Their homes were in Palestine.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Resolutions written by Rabbid Jew haters are worthless on the paper and ink they are wasted.
> 
> Israel has no obligation to follow ANY of the self aggrandized "resolutions"  Rabbid Christians and Muslims have decided on in order to destroy Israel.
> 
> You continue to exaggerate about the "every country".
> 
> Take it down a peg


Israel is a member state of the UN.  Why would you belong to an organization, if you have no intention of following their rules?

BTW, several of those resolutions are telling Israel to stop doing business with apartheid South Africa.  WTF does that have to do with Jew hate?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, English is not your first language, and decency is not your second one.
> 
> I was very clear as to what I wrote, but you do insist that the Arabs who have chosen to appropriate the word Palestine (Invaders) to themselves, have the same right of return to all of Israel as the Jewish people who are the indigenous people of the land.
> 
> You want to give the Ancient Land of Canaan, all of it, which is the indigenous homeland of the Jewish People,  to the invaders from the Land of Arabia.
> 
> No deal.
> 
> They have every right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Arabia awaits all of the Arabs who want to return.
> 
> Next Year in Mecca.
> 
> The Jewish people are on their homeland.
> 
> As it is always said amongst the Jewish Nation, Next Year in Jerusalem.
> 
> We are home.
> 
> Am Israel Chai.
> 
> 
> 
> They're not the invaders, you are!  You are the ones who moved into the area.  They were the people already living there.
Click to expand...



Palestine comes from the Hebrew word "Pelishtim" which means "invaders."  Many Palestinians were recent immigrants from Arab lands who came to that area after the Zionists built it up economically.  Even a Hamas leader said that half the Palestinians came from Egypt, and the other half came from Arabia.

Anyway, you have no credibility after you said that not since the Nazis has there been a genocide like the one in Palestine.  What happened to the genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia in the 70's, Darfur and Sudan, and the one going on right now in Syria?  If ppl aren't killed by Jews, then those ppl don't count?


----------



## Billo_Really

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Palestine comes from the Hebrew word "Pelishtim" which means "invaders."  Many Palestinians were recent immigrants from Arab lands who came to that area after the Zionists built it up economically.  Even a Hamas leader said that half the Palestinians came from Egypt, and the other half came from Arabia.


Arabs have been living there for generations.  So have Jews.  However, the Arabs were the majority population.  Zionists migrated in to the area around the turn of the last century.  This is an historical fact.  You cannot re-write history.  And the non-Jewish population in 1948 has rights.  The Zionist population at that time, does not have more rights. 

You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.




ForeverYoung436 said:


> Anyway, you have no credibility after you said that not since the Nazis has there been a genocide like the one in Palestine.  What happened to the genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia in the 70's, Darfur and Sudan, and the one going on right now in Syria?  If ppl aren't killed by Jews, then those ppl don't count?


That's not what I said.  I said you have to all the way back to Germany in the 1930's, to find an entire population of people that were treated worse than the Palestinians.

In Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur and Sudan, the genocide all came to an end.  The genocide in the OPT, has not ended.  It has been going on for 70 years, starting with what the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun did at Deir Yassen in 1948.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine comes from the Hebrew word "Pelishtim" which means "invaders."  Many Palestinians were recent immigrants from Arab lands who came to that area after the Zionists built it up economically.  Even a Hamas leader said that half the Palestinians came from Egypt, and the other half came from Arabia.
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs have been living there for generations.  So have Jews.  However, the Arabs were the majority population.  Zionists migrated in to the area around the turn of the last century.  This is an historical fact.  You cannot re-write history.  And the non-Jewish population in 1948 has rights.  The Zionist population at that time, does not have more rights.
> 
> You cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, you have no credibility after you said that not since the Nazis has there been a genocide like the one in Palestine.  What happened to the genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia in the 70's, Darfur and Sudan, and the one going on right now in Syria?  If ppl aren't killed by Jews, then those ppl don't count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I said.  I said you have to all the way back to Germany in the 1930's, to find an entire population of people that were treated worse than the Palestinians.
> 
> In Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur and Sudan, the genocide all came to an end.  The genocide in the OPT, has not ended.  It has been going on for 70 years, starting with what the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun did at Deir Yassen in 1948.
Click to expand...


Facts don't support You crazy big claims.

A "genocide" which results in 5-fold increase in the populations?
 If anything it's an Arab genocide of the Jews around the middle east which completely
succeeded, with virtually no Jews left in Arab countries,.while at the same time more Arabs are living now in the Jewish land than ever before under Arab Muslim occupation.

Palestinian Arabs still keep demanding a Jew-free state.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Facts don't support You crazy big claims.
> 
> A "genocide" which results in 5-fold increase in the populations?
> If anything it's an Arab genocide of the Jews around the middle east which completely
> succeeded, with virtually no Jews left in Arab countries,.while at the same time more Arabs are living now in the Jewish land than ever before under Arab Muslim occupation.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs still keep demanding a Jew-free state.


I've posted the facts.  I've posted the links.  You refuse to deal with reality.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts don't support You crazy big claims.
> 
> A "genocide" which results in 5-fold increase in the populations?
> If anything it's an Arab genocide of the Jews around the middle east which completely
> succeeded, with virtually no Jews left in Arab countries,.while at the same time more Arabs are living now in the Jewish land than ever before under Arab Muslim occupation.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs still keep demanding a Jew-free state.
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted the facts.  I've posted the links.  You refuse to deal with reality.
Click to expand...

I LIVE in the midst of this reality,
You live some thousands miles away, and so is Your comprehension and knowledge of facts.

That's why You weren't capable of proving me wrong about anything, You just jump from subject to subject and boldly lie when faced with facts. DEAL WITH IT.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

rylah said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts don't support You crazy big claims.
> 
> A "genocide" which results in 5-fold increase in the populations?
> If anything it's an Arab genocide of the Jews around the middle east which completely
> succeeded, with virtually no Jews left in Arab countries,.while at the same time more Arabs are living now in the Jewish land than ever before under Arab Muslim occupation.
> 
> Palestinian Arabs still keep demanding a Jew-free state.
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted the facts.  I've posted the links.  You refuse to deal with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I LIVE in the midst of this reality,
> You live some thousands miles away, and so is Your comprehension and knowledge of facts.
> 
> That's why You weren't capable of proving me wrong about anything, You just jump from subject to subject and boldly lie when faced with facts. DEAL WITH IT.
Click to expand...



He has never even visited Israel or the Palestinian areas.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> I LIVE in the midst of this reality,
> You live some thousands miles away, and so is Your comprehension and knowledge of facts.
> 
> That's why You weren't capable of proving me wrong about anything, You just jump from subject to subject and boldly lie when faced with facts. DEAL WITH IT.


You're trying to claim water is not wet.  Yeah, that's reality?


----------



## Billo_Really

ForeverYoung436 said:


> He has never even visited Israel or the Palestinian areas.


Have you ever lived under the occupation of a foreign force?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I LIVE in the midst of this reality,
> You live some thousands miles away, and so is Your comprehension and knowledge of facts.
> 
> That's why You weren't capable of proving me wrong about anything, You just jump from subject to subject and boldly lie when faced with facts. DEAL WITH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to claim water is not wet.  Yeah, that's reality?
Click to expand...

You are trying to make Jews keep paying for your belief that the Jews are to blame for the death of Jesus.

You are a religious fanatic who does not care about facts when it comes to the Jewish People, they simply must keep on paying for what you believe they did.

You have mentioned your god a few times.

We get it.

Jews must remain stateless and at the mercy of non Jews, until they repent and convert, or something to that effect so that finally Jesus will return and there will be salvation.

Keep on spitting your hatred for Jews, that way we will continue to know that we are doing the right thing in defending ourselves and Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has never even visited Israel or the Palestinian areas.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever lived under the occupation of a foreign force?
Click to expand...

How much of a dunce can you be not to know that thousands of Jews who lived under European or Arab domination are still alive and still remember what it was like being under Christian or Muslim hatred and laws which proved that hatred on a daily basis?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> You are trying to make Jews keep paying for your belief that the Jews are to blame for the death of Jesus.


Wasn't it the Romans who killed him?



Sixties Fan said:


> You are a religious fanatic who does not care about facts when it comes to the Jewish People, they simply must keep on paying for what you believe they did.


I also like long walks on the beach, a good book and single malt scotch.



Sixties Fan said:


> You have mentioned your god a few times.
> 
> We get it.


My God is the same as your God.  HE the same God for Islams God.  All 3 religions pray to the same Supreme Being.  My God _IS_ your God and _IS_ the Muslims God as well.  It does not matter we call HIM by different names, it's the same dude!



Sixties Fan said:


> Jews must remain stateless and at the mercy of non Jews, until they repent and convert, or something to that effect so that finally Jesus will return and there will be salvation.


You don't know your own Torah?  The Three Oaths say Jews are to remain in exile until God comes back down to earth.  Basically, man...._in this case the asshole Zionist_...cannot create the state of Israel.  Only God can.  But you didn't wait, did you?



Sixties Fan said:


> Keep on spitting your hatred for Jews, that way we will continue to know that we are doing the right thing in defending ourselves and Israel.


Why would I hate Jews?


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> How much of a dunce can you be not to know that thousands of Jews who lived under European or Arab domination are still alive and still remember what it was like being under Christian or Muslim hatred and laws which proved that hatred on a daily basis?


Then why can't you see things from the Palestinians eyes?  Why can't you see things from their point of view?  Whenever I even bring up the subject of empathy for the Palestinians, you give me this _"deer-in-the-headlights" _look!

Was it the Jews fault the Germans treated them that way?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to make Jews keep paying for your belief that the Jews are to blame for the death of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it the Romans who killed him?
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a religious fanatic who does not care about facts when it comes to the Jewish People, they simply must keep on paying for what you believe they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also like long walks on the beach, a good book and single malt scotch.
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have mentioned your god a few times.
> 
> We get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God is the same as your God.  HE the same God for Islams God.  All 3 religions pray to the same Supreme Being.  My God _IS_ your God and _IS_ the Muslims God as well.  It does not matter we call HIM by different names, it's the same dude!
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jews must remain stateless and at the mercy of non Jews, until they repent and convert, or something to that effect so that finally Jesus will return and there will be salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know your own Torah?  The Three Oaths say Jews are to remain in exile until God comes back down to earth.  Basically, man...._in this case the asshole Zionist_...cannot create the state of Israel.  Only God can.  But you didn't wait, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep on spitting your hatred for Jews, that way we will continue to know that we are doing the right thing in defending ourselves and Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I hate Jews?
Click to expand...

You are insane and you hate Jews because you ARE insane.
Ask any Psychologist.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of a dunce can you be not to know that thousands of Jews who lived under European or Arab domination are still alive and still remember what it was like being under Christian or Muslim hatred and laws which proved that hatred on a daily basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you see things from the Palestinians eyes?  Why can't you see things from their point of view?  Whenever I even bring up the subject of empathy for the Palestinians, you give me this _"deer-in-the-headlights" _look!
> 
> Was it the Jews fault the Germans treated them that way?
Click to expand...

Another dunce answer.

Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.

Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.

Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.

You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.

Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> You are insane and you hate Jews because you ARE insane.
> Ask any Psychologist.


I think you want people to hate Jews.    You're doing everything you can, to make people hate Jews.  Because if they didn't, you couldn't  treat others like garbage.


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Another dunce answer.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.


Here's a few facts and figures for your little dumbass brain...

_Israel allowed an average of 475 daily truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza during May 2007, 123 in October 2008, and only six in November 2008._​
Six truckloads?  Are you kidding me?  For a population of 1.5 million people?  Six fucking truckloads?  And you're bragging about that?

And the impact this bullshit blockade has had on their economy...

_...the World Bank stated that due to the blockade of Gaza, "only about 2% of industrial establishments are still functioning," industrial employment had fallen from 35,000 in 2005 to a mere 840, and 40,000 jobs in agriculture had been destroyed_.​
And according to AI...

_While Israel allows some humanitarian supplies from international aid agencies into Gaza, these are strictly limited and frequently delayed. _​And on the subject of healthcare...

_Following the Israeli closure of crossings, people with medical conditions that cannot be treated in Gaza have been required to apply for permits to leave the territory to receive treatment in either foreign hospitals or Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank.*The Israeli authorities frequently delay or refuse these permits; some Gazans have died while waiting to obtain permits to leave the territory for medical treatment elsewhere.*World Health Organization (WHO) trucks of medical equipment bound for Gazan hospitals have repeatedly been turned away, without explanation, by Israeli border officials._​
Gazans have died waiting for Israeli permission to go to a hospital out of the area.  Requests repeatedly being denied without explanation?  Yeah, that sounds like you!



Sixties Fan said:


> Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.


You have no right building anything in those places.  That is not your land.  And it will never be your land.  Get that through your psycho fucking head!



Sixties Fan said:


> Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.


They don't!  See above...



Sixties Fan said:


> You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.
> 
> Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!


Of coarse they are.  And come judgement day, you're gonna have to explain why they are different to THAT GUY!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Billo_Really said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another dunce answer.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a few facts and figures for your little dumbass brain...
> 
> _Israel allowed an average of 475 daily truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza during May 2007, 123 in October 2008, and only six in November 2008._​
> Six truckloads?  Are you kidding me?  For a population of 1.5 million people?  Six fucking truckloads?  And you're bragging about that?
> 
> And the impact this bullshit blockade has had on their economy...
> 
> _...the World Bank stated that due to the blockade of Gaza, "only about 2% of industrial establishments are still functioning," industrial employment had fallen from 35,000 in 2005 to a mere 840, and 40,000 jobs in agriculture had been destroyed_.​
> And according to AI...
> 
> _While Israel allows some humanitarian supplies from international aid agencies into Gaza, these are strictly limited and frequently delayed. _​And on the subject of healthcare...
> 
> _Following the Israeli closure of crossings, people with medical conditions that cannot be treated in Gaza have been required to apply for permits to leave the territory to receive treatment in either foreign hospitals or Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank.*The Israeli authorities frequently delay or refuse these permits; some Gazans have died while waiting to obtain permits to leave the territory for medical treatment elsewhere.*World Health Organization (WHO) trucks of medical equipment bound for Gazan hospitals have repeatedly been turned away, without explanation, by Israeli border officials._​
> Gazans have died waiting for Israeli permission to go to a hospital out of the area.  Requests repeatedly being denied without explanation?  Yeah, that sounds like you!
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no right building anything in those places.  That is not your land.  And it will never be your land.  Get that through your psycho fucking head!
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't!  See above...
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.
> 
> Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of coarse they are.  And come judgement day, you're gonna have to explain why they are different to THAT GUY!
Click to expand...

Your Christian hatred of Jews means absolutely nothing.
Thou shalt not lie, and thou shalt not spread false witness are two  commandments you may want to look into.

THAT GUY, is your GUY, Jesus.

We do not answer to him, who happens to be a mere mortal, a Jewish man, who would be disgusted with the likes of you.

Keep derailing all the threads with the same toxic Christian hatred for Jews.  You do it so well.

In the end.....

The People of Israel Live.

Am Israel Chai


----------



## Billo_Really

Sixties Fan said:


> Your Christian hatred of Jews means absolutely nothing.


Why would I hate Jews?



Sixties Fan said:


> Thou shalt not lie, and thou shalt not spread false witness are two  commandments you may want to look into.


It's "bear" false witness.  You can't even tell me what commandments they are?



Sixties Fan said:


> THAT GUY, is your GUY, Jesus.


Actually, I was talking about his DAD.  You know, God; Allah; Yahweh; all the same dude.



Sixties Fan said:


> We do not answer to him, who happens to be a mere mortal, a Jewish man, who would be disgusted with the likes of you.


Would you like me if I wore shirts like this?







Sixties Fan said:


> Keep derailing all the threads with the same toxic Christian hatred for Jews.  You do it so well.


When you're not trying to strip freedom of expression from everyone who criticizes Israel, you try to make every subject on the planet about Jew hate.

*billo*: _"Hey, I had a bad shit this morning!"_
*Sixties fan*: _"Jew hater!"_​


Sixties Fan said:


> In the end.....
> 
> The People of Israel Live.


While they murder others in cold blood.



Sixties Fan said:


> Am Israel Chai


Lehi lehizdayen


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I LIVE in the midst of this reality,
> You live some thousands miles away, and so is Your comprehension and knowledge of facts.
> 
> That's why You weren't capable of proving me wrong about anything, You just jump from subject to subject and boldly lie when faced with facts. DEAL WITH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to claim water is not wet.  Yeah, that's reality?
Click to expand...


Nice strawman -that's exactly Your position.

You claim that invaders are the people of the place even when they themselves claim otherwise,
You claim that the conflict has nothing to do with Jews, when Arabs openly initiated the war openly calling to "Kill all the Jews, it's a religious duty".
You claim Zionists are responsible for all the ills of this conflict, when in reality Arab pogroms were the initial cause of Zionism.


----------



## Sixties Fan

"Cars with megaphones roamed the streets, demanding that people leave" 

"The one who made us leave was the Jordanian army" 

"The radio stations of the Arab regimes kept repeating to us: 'Get away'" 

"Our [Arab] district officer issued an order that whoever stays in Palestine is a traitor" 

The Arab Salvation Army told the Palestinians: "We have come to you in order to exterminate the Zionists... Leave your houses and villages, you'll return to them safely in a few days." 

"The Arab Salvation Army said: 'Leave, but don't go far from the village because they [the Jews] will make a short visit...' The people left with nothing, even without bread."

(full article online)

What caused the Palestinian refugee problem? 13 important stories told by refugees from 1948 - PMW Bulletins


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of a dunce can you be not to know that thousands of Jews who lived under European or Arab domination are still alive and still remember what it was like being under Christian or Muslim hatred and laws which proved that hatred on a daily basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you see things from the Palestinians eyes?  Why can't you see things from their point of view?  Whenever I even bring up the subject of empathy for the Palestinians, you give me this _"deer-in-the-headlights" _look!
> 
> Was it the Jews fault the Germans treated them that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dunce answer.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.
> 
> Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.
> 
> You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.
> 
> Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!
Click to expand...

Lack of empathy is forbidding the people in Gaza from providing those things for themselves.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of a dunce can you be not to know that thousands of Jews who lived under European or Arab domination are still alive and still remember what it was like being under Christian or Muslim hatred and laws which proved that hatred on a daily basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you see things from the Palestinians eyes?  Why can't you see things from their point of view?  Whenever I even bring up the subject of empathy for the Palestinians, you give me this _"deer-in-the-headlights" _look!
> 
> Was it the Jews fault the Germans treated them that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dunce answer.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.
> 
> Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.
> 
> You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.
> 
> Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lack of empathy is forbidding the people in Gaza from providing those things for themselves.
Click to expand...

Hamas and the way they keep control of what is built and what is not, and putting all the money, power and everything else in their pockets, is what is keeping the people from having all the things they need. 

Hamas has no empathy for the people living in Gaza.

But you do not have empathy for them unless the ones blamed for their problems is Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of a dunce can you be not to know that thousands of Jews who lived under European or Arab domination are still alive and still remember what it was like being under Christian or Muslim hatred and laws which proved that hatred on a daily basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you see things from the Palestinians eyes?  Why can't you see things from their point of view?  Whenever I even bring up the subject of empathy for the Palestinians, you give me this _"deer-in-the-headlights" _look!
> 
> Was it the Jews fault the Germans treated them that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dunce answer.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.
> 
> Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.
> 
> You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.
> 
> Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lack of empathy is forbidding the people in Gaza from providing those things for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas and the way they keep control of what is built and what is not, and putting all the money, power and everything else in their pockets, is what is keeping the people from having all the things they need.
> 
> Hamas has no empathy for the people living in Gaza.
> 
> But you do not have empathy for them unless the ones blamed for their problems is Israel.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you were raised on Israeli bullshit.

One of many examples is that Israel would bulldoze Palestinian greenhouses then act like they were doing the Palestinians a favor by allowing them to work in Israeli greenhouses.

"Look how nice we are. We are providing them jobs."


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of a dunce can you be not to know that thousands of Jews who lived under European or Arab domination are still alive and still remember what it was like being under Christian or Muslim hatred and laws which proved that hatred on a daily basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you see things from the Palestinians eyes?  Why can't you see things from their point of view?  Whenever I even bring up the subject of empathy for the Palestinians, you give me this _"deer-in-the-headlights" _look!
> 
> Was it the Jews fault the Germans treated them that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dunce answer.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.
> 
> Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.
> 
> You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.
> 
> Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lack of empathy is forbidding the people in Gaza from providing those things for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas and the way they keep control of what is built and what is not, and putting all the money, power and everything else in their pockets, is what is keeping the people from having all the things they need.
> 
> Hamas has no empathy for the people living in Gaza.
> 
> But you do not have empathy for them unless the ones blamed for their problems is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is that you were raised on Israeli bullshit.
> 
> One of many examples is that Israel would bulldoze Palestinian greenhouses then act like they were doing the Palestinians a favor by allowing them to work in Israeli greenhouses.
> 
> "Look how nice we are. We are providing them jobs."
Click to expand...


And all that pretty much sounds like the usual one sided Palywood bs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you see things from the Palestinians eyes?  Why can't you see things from their point of view?  Whenever I even bring up the subject of empathy for the Palestinians, you give me this _"deer-in-the-headlights" _look!
> 
> Was it the Jews fault the Germans treated them that way?
> 
> 
> 
> Another dunce answer.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.
> 
> Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.
> 
> You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.
> 
> Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lack of empathy is forbidding the people in Gaza from providing those things for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas and the way they keep control of what is built and what is not, and putting all the money, power and everything else in their pockets, is what is keeping the people from having all the things they need.
> 
> Hamas has no empathy for the people living in Gaza.
> 
> But you do not have empathy for them unless the ones blamed for their problems is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is that you were raised on Israeli bullshit.
> 
> One of many examples is that Israel would bulldoze Palestinian greenhouses then act like they were doing the Palestinians a favor by allowing them to work in Israeli greenhouses.
> 
> "Look how nice we are. We are providing them jobs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all that pretty much sounds like the usual one sided Palywood bs.
Click to expand...

Why do you post here when you know so little?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another dunce answer.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that Israel does not allow any trucks and help into Gaza and does not allow the Palestinians any health care, jobs, or education.
> 
> Lack of empathy would have kept the Jews from ever building electricity structures in Gaza and Judea and Samaria after 1967.
> 
> Lack of empathy would mean that once the Arab leaders and their families needed medical care, they would also not find it in Israel.
> 
> You are a complete dunce that you dare to say that the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the very same one.
> 
> Hurray for the Dunce !!!!   Rah, rah, rah!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of empathy is forbidding the people in Gaza from providing those things for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hamas and the way they keep control of what is built and what is not, and putting all the money, power and everything else in their pockets, is what is keeping the people from having all the things they need.
> 
> Hamas has no empathy for the people living in Gaza.
> 
> But you do not have empathy for them unless the ones blamed for their problems is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is that you were raised on Israeli bullshit.
> 
> One of many examples is that Israel would bulldoze Palestinian greenhouses then act like they were doing the Palestinians a favor by allowing them to work in Israeli greenhouses.
> 
> "Look how nice we are. We are providing them jobs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all that pretty much sounds like the usual one sided Palywood bs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little?
Click to expand...


Why?

Because since Israel liberation the land produces more crops than ever in the last millenia. Both by Jews and by Arabs. And the trade generated by Arab farmers is highest in history just from the exports to Israel alone.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of empathy is forbidding the people in Gaza from providing those things for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas and the way they keep control of what is built and what is not, and putting all the money, power and everything else in their pockets, is what is keeping the people from having all the things they need.
> 
> Hamas has no empathy for the people living in Gaza.
> 
> But you do not have empathy for them unless the ones blamed for their problems is Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is that you were raised on Israeli bullshit.
> 
> One of many examples is that Israel would bulldoze Palestinian greenhouses then act like they were doing the Palestinians a favor by allowing them to work in Israeli greenhouses.
> 
> "Look how nice we are. We are providing them jobs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all that pretty much sounds like the usual one sided Palywood bs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because since Israel liberation the land produces more crops than ever in the last millenia. Both by Jews and by Arabs. And the trade generated by Arab farmers is highest in history just from the exports to Israel alone.
Click to expand...

How much were those exports last year?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas and the way they keep control of what is built and what is not, and putting all the money, power and everything else in their pockets, is what is keeping the people from having all the things they need.
> 
> Hamas has no empathy for the people living in Gaza.
> 
> But you do not have empathy for them unless the ones blamed for their problems is Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is that you were raised on Israeli bullshit.
> 
> One of many examples is that Israel would bulldoze Palestinian greenhouses then act like they were doing the Palestinians a favor by allowing them to work in Israeli greenhouses.
> 
> "Look how nice we are. We are providing them jobs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all that pretty much sounds like the usual one sided Palywood bs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because since Israel liberation the land produces more crops than ever in the last millenia. Both by Jews and by Arabs. And the trade generated by Arab farmers is highest in history just from the exports to Israel alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much were those exports last year?
Click to expand...


8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is that you were raised on Israeli bullshit.
> 
> One of many examples is that Israel would bulldoze Palestinian greenhouses then act like they were doing the Palestinians a favor by allowing them to work in Israeli greenhouses.
> 
> "Look how nice we are. We are providing them jobs."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that pretty much sounds like the usual one sided Palywood bs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because since Israel liberation the land produces more crops than ever in the last millenia. Both by Jews and by Arabs. And the trade generated by Arab farmers is highest in history just from the exports to Israel alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much were those exports last year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
> Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.
Click to expand...

Why so little?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all that pretty much sounds like the usual one sided Palywood bs.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because since Israel liberation the land produces more crops than ever in the last millenia. Both by Jews and by Arabs. And the trade generated by Arab farmers is highest in history just from the exports to Israel alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much were those exports last year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
> Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why so little?
Click to expand...


Compared to what?


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so called'67 borders were never borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is solved with guns and jets, not panels and boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. Duh bomb'em is old school. We live in a more civilized world now where we should abide by the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not try and force the rule of law retrospectively because we hate the Jews, like you do constantly. The rule of law says the arab muslims have no legal right to the west bank or Jerusalem, so why don't you shout for it to be acted on ?
Click to expand...

*This was their Home back many thousand of years ago so what is the beef.  The UN  formed it to be Jewish but now have changed their minds.  Its lucky they have some Nukes seeing how the Mental Patients are working one some.*


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you post here when you know so little?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because since Israel liberation the land produces more crops than ever in the last millenia. Both by Jews and by Arabs. And the trade generated by Arab farmers is highest in history just from the exports to Israel alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much were those exports last year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
> Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to what?
Click to expand...

This is what Sara Roy calls de-development. This is for the 2014 attack only.

Damage to agricultural land and the fishing sector shattered the local economy – the Ministry of Agriculture estimated a loss of US$550 million. The hostilities damaged 42,000 acres of farmland, as well as greenhouses, irrigation systems, livestock, fodder stocks and fishing boats, affecting the livelihoods of some 40,000 people.

Gaza Crisis Facts and Figures​
Of course there is also the restriction on trade.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because since Israel liberation the land produces more crops than ever in the last millenia. Both by Jews and by Arabs. And the trade generated by Arab farmers is highest in history just from the exports to Israel alone.
> 
> 
> 
> How much were those exports last year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
> Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what Sara Roy calls de-development. This is for the 2014 attack only.
> 
> Damage to agricultural land and the fishing sector shattered the local economy – the Ministry of Agriculture estimated a loss of US$550 million. The hostilities damaged 42,000 acres of farmland, as well as greenhouses, irrigation systems, livestock, fodder stocks and fishing boats, affecting the livelihoods of some 40,000 people.
> 
> Gaza Crisis Facts and Figures​
> Of course there is also the restriction on trade.
Click to expand...

Tell Hamas and all the other Iran backed groups to stop wanting Israel for themselves and everyone's lives in Gaza will get much better.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because since Israel liberation the land produces more crops than ever in the last millenia. Both by Jews and by Arabs. And the trade generated by Arab farmers is highest in history just from the exports to Israel alone.
> 
> 
> 
> How much were those exports last year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
> Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what Sara Roy calls de-development. This is for the 2014 attack only.
> 
> Damage to agricultural land and the fishing sector shattered the local economy – the Ministry of Agriculture estimated a loss of US$550 million. The hostilities damaged 42,000 acres of farmland, as well as greenhouses, irrigation systems, livestock, fodder stocks and fishing boats, affecting the livelihoods of some 40,000 people.
> 
> Gaza Crisis Facts and Figures​
> Of course there is also the restriction on trade.
Click to expand...


So?
Start stupid wars face consequence.
You act as if Israel owes something the the Gazans.

Why don't You ask the guy who now ran away to Qatar yet once again with his billions, for whom those US$550 million are just a PR investment to generate another billion on the account of his people suffering.

And all it takes is shoot rockets, kidnap Israelis and run away to the Gulf.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Nice strawman -that's exactly Your position.


That was a metaphor, not a strawman.



rylah said:


> You claim that invaders are the people of the place even when they themselves claim otherwise,


 _"...invaders are the people of the place..."_

Do you ever think about what you are saying before you say it?



rylah said:


> You claim that the conflict has nothing to do with Jews, when Arabs openly initiated the war openly calling to "Kill all the Jews, it's a religious duty".


I claimed Zionists started the war by migrating in to the area and treating the indigenous, non-Jewish residents like garbage.



rylah said:


> You claim Zionists are responsible for all the ills of this conflict, when in reality Arab pogroms were the initial cause of Zionism.


In Palestine, the violence we know today, was started by Zionists when they migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.


----------



## P F Tinmore

QUOTE="rylah, post: 20007826, member: 54800"]





P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much were those exports last year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
> Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what Sara Roy calls de-development. This is for the 2014 attack only.
> 
> Damage to agricultural land and the fishing sector shattered the local economy – the Ministry of Agriculture estimated a loss of US$550 million. The hostilities damaged 42,000 acres of farmland, as well as greenhouses, irrigation systems, livestock, fodder stocks and fishing boats, affecting the livelihoods of some 40,000 people.
> 
> Gaza Crisis Facts and Figures​
> Of course there is also the restriction on trade.
Click to expand...


So?
Start stupid wars face consequence.
You act as if Israel owes something the the Gazans.

Why don't You ask the guy who now ran away to Qatar yet once again with his billions, for whom those US$550 million are just a PR investment to generate another billion on the account of his people suffering.

And all it takes is shoot rockets, kidnap Israelis and run away to the Gulf.[/QUOTE]
The Palestinians did not start any war. [


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman -that's exactly Your position.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a metaphor, not a strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that invaders are the people of the place even when they themselves claim otherwise,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"...invaders are the people of the place..."_
> 
> Do you ever think about what you are saying before you say it?
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the conflict has nothing to do with Jews, when Arabs openly initiated the war openly calling to "Kill all the Jews, it's a religious duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I claimed Zionists started the war by migrating in to the area and treating the indigenous, non-Jewish residents like garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim Zionists are responsible for all the ills of this conflict, when in reality Arab pogroms were the initial cause of Zionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Palestine, the violence we know today, was started by Zionists when they migrated into the area with their racist, apartheid policies.
Click to expand...


Yes more of the baseless claims - facts show You wrong.
History doesn't start at 1880.

Facts show that there were much bigger waves of migration of Arabs
Facts show that the war started with Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews.
Facts show that Arab violence was an initial cause of Zionism.

Fact is You everything You blame the Jews for is a drop in the bucket compared to what Arabs did themselves.

If you want to talk about racist policies tell us - during which rule did the land see the highest increase in both Arab and Jewish populations? Tell us in which middle eastern Arab country do Jews enjoy (anywhere close) the rights Arab enjoy in Israel?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> QUOTE="rylah, post: 20007826, member: 54800"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much were those exports last year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
> Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what Sara Roy calls de-development. This is for the 2014 attack only.
> 
> Damage to agricultural land and the fishing sector shattered the local economy – the Ministry of Agriculture estimated a loss of US$550 million. The hostilities damaged 42,000 acres of farmland, as well as greenhouses, irrigation systems, livestock, fodder stocks and fishing boats, affecting the livelihoods of some 40,000 people.
> 
> Gaza Crisis Facts and Figures​
> Of course there is also the restriction on trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> Start stupid wars face consequence.
> You act as if Israel owes something the the Gazans.
> 
> Why don't You ask the guy who now ran away to Qatar yet once again with his billions, for whom those US$550 million are just a PR investment to generate another billion on the account of his people suffering.
> 
> And all it takes is shoot rockets, kidnap Israelis and run away to the Gulf.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians did not start any war. [[/QUOTE]

Arab pogroms pushed against Palestinian Jews were an initial cause in Zionist organization,
and it were the Arabs who joined British military invasion of the land.

They have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE="rylah, post: 20007826, member: 54800"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 mill shekels from Gaza 2017 alone, not including seasonal deals before holidays.
> Before Hamas 25% of vegetables in Israel were of Gaza production, the export to Israel was 28 times higher.
> 
> 
> 
> Why so little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what Sara Roy calls de-development. This is for the 2014 attack only.
> 
> Damage to agricultural land and the fishing sector shattered the local economy – the Ministry of Agriculture estimated a loss of US$550 million. The hostilities damaged 42,000 acres of farmland, as well as greenhouses, irrigation systems, livestock, fodder stocks and fishing boats, affecting the livelihoods of some 40,000 people.
> 
> Gaza Crisis Facts and Figures​
> Of course there is also the restriction on trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> Start stupid wars face consequence.
> You act as if Israel owes something the the Gazans.
> 
> Why don't You ask the guy who now ran away to Qatar yet once again with his billions, for whom those US$550 million are just a PR investment to generate another billion on the account of his people suffering.
> 
> And all it takes is shoot rockets, kidnap Israelis and run away to the Gulf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians did not start any war. [
Click to expand...


Arab pogroms pushed against Palestinian Jews were an initial cause in Zionist organization,
and it were the Arabs who joined British military invasion of the land.

They have no one to blame but themselves.[/QUOTE]
The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.



Dispossessing oldest Jewish communities from their ancestral lands is not exactly "minding their own business". Invading from Arabia and Egypt is not exactly sitting home either.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.



That’s not exactly true, Chuckles. The Arabs-Moslems were simply the most recent Islamist colonial settler project following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. 

Let me guess. You’re just incensed that the fascist imposition of dhimmitude is not available to you folks anymore.


----------



## rylah

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not exactly true, Chuckles. The Arabs-Moslems were simply the most recent Islamist colonial settler project following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Let me guess. You’re just incensed that the fascist imposition of dhimmitude is not available to you folks anymore.
Click to expand...


Arab Muslims revolted when Egyptian rule made Muslims, Christians and Jews equal tax-wise.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dispossessing oldest Jewish communities from their ancestral lands is not exactly "minding their own business". Invading from Arabia and Egypt is not exactly sitting home either.
Click to expand...

WTF!


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dispossessing oldest Jewish communities from their ancestral lands is not exactly "minding their own business". Invading from Arabia and Egypt is not exactly sitting home either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!
Click to expand...


At least You're open about Your inability to contradict facts that destroy the Arab narrative.
History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms  40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dispossessing oldest Jewish communities from their ancestral lands is not exactly "minding their own business". Invading from Arabia and Egypt is not exactly sitting home either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least You're open about Your inability to contradict facts that destroy the Arab narrative.
Click to expand...

What facts?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dispossessing oldest Jewish communities from their ancestral lands is not exactly "minding their own business". Invading from Arabia and Egypt is not exactly sitting home either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least You're open about Your inability to contradict facts that destroy the Arab narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts?
Click to expand...


History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.

Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were at home minding their own business. They did not go attack anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dispossessing oldest Jewish communities from their ancestral lands is not exactly "minding their own business". Invading from Arabia and Egypt is not exactly sitting home either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least You're open about Your inability to contradict facts that destroy the Arab narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
Click to expand...

An event out of context does not help.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dispossessing oldest Jewish communities from their ancestral lands is not exactly "minding their own business". Invading from Arabia and Egypt is not exactly sitting home either.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least You're open about Your inability to contradict facts that destroy the Arab narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
Click to expand...

So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least You're open about Your inability to contradict facts that destroy the Arab narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
Click to expand...

What Arab pogroms? What was the context?

Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least You're open about Your inability to contradict facts that destroy the Arab narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> What facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
Click to expand...


Yes, like today when Arabs-Moslems with weapons and explosives are massing and attacking near the Israeli border threatening to “rip out the hearts” of Jews. 

So yes, Israel is defending itself from those who are attacking. 

You have great difficulty with terms and definition.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like today when Arabs-Moslems with weapons and explosives are massing and attacking near the Israeli border threatening to “rip out the hearts” of Jews.
> 
> So yes, Israel is defending itself from those who are attacking.
> 
> You have great difficulty with terms and definition.
Click to expand...

You are a hoot. You know nothing.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> 
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like today when Arabs-Moslems with weapons and explosives are massing and attacking near the Israeli border threatening to “rip out the hearts” of Jews.
> 
> So yes, Israel is defending itself from those who are attacking.
> 
> You have great difficulty with terms and definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a hoot. You know nothing.
Click to expand...


Hams is just the continuation of Arab Pogroms before the establishment of Israel.

Nothing different, Arabs were massacring their Palestinian Jewish neighbor before Israel, they still attempt to do so. Nothing changed with the exception that Israel now has a state and an army to oppose these suicidal intentions by Your Jihadi heroes.
*
Context is the enemy of the Arab narrative.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> 
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like today when Arabs-Moslems with weapons and explosives are massing and attacking near the Israeli border threatening to “rip out the hearts” of Jews.
> 
> So yes, Israel is defending itself from those who are attacking.
> 
> You have great difficulty with terms and definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a hoot. You know nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hams is just the continuation of Arab Pogroms before the establishment of Israel.
> 
> Nothing different, Arabs were massacring their Palestinian Jewish neighbor before Israel, they still attempt to do so. Nothing changed with the exception that Israel now has a state and an army to oppose these suicidal intentions by Your Jihadi heroes.
> *
> Context is the enemy of the Arab narrative.*
Click to expand...

Nice dodge.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> 
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like today when Arabs-Moslems with weapons and explosives are massing and attacking near the Israeli border threatening to “rip out the hearts” of Jews.
> 
> So yes, Israel is defending itself from those who are attacking.
> 
> You have great difficulty with terms and definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a hoot. You know nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hams is just the continuation of Arab Pogroms before the establishment of Israel.
> 
> Nothing different, Arabs were massacring their Palestinian Jewish neighbor before Israel, they still attempt to do so. Nothing changed with the exception that Israel now has a state and an army to oppose these suicidal intentions by Your Jihadi heroes.
> *
> Context is the enemy of the Arab narrative.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge.
Click to expand...



Dodge from what, Your lame attempt at rewriting history?
Your narrative can hold no ground faced with facts.

Arabs -initiated the war - it's in their responsibility to stop it now.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> 
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like today when Arabs-Moslems with weapons and explosives are massing and attacking near the Israeli border threatening to “rip out the hearts” of Jews.
> 
> So yes, Israel is defending itself from those who are attacking.
> 
> You have great difficulty with terms and definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a hoot. You know nothing.
Click to expand...


Nice duck. 

Your usual tactic is to cut and paste some meaningless YouTube video (I really get a chuckle from your cut and paste Press TV YouTube videos), when you’re unable to address specific comments.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like today when Arabs-Moslems with weapons and explosives are massing and attacking near the Israeli border threatening to “rip out the hearts” of Jews.
> 
> So yes, Israel is defending itself from those who are attacking.
> 
> You have great difficulty with terms and definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a hoot. You know nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hams is just the continuation of Arab Pogroms before the establishment of Israel.
> 
> Nothing different, Arabs were massacring their Palestinian Jewish neighbor before Israel, they still attempt to do so. Nothing changed with the exception that Israel now has a state and an army to oppose these suicidal intentions by Your Jihadi heroes.
> *
> Context is the enemy of the Arab narrative.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge from what, Your lame attempt at rewriting history?
> Your narrative can hold no ground faced with facts.
> 
> Arabs -initiated the war - it's in their responsibility to stop it now.
Click to expand...

Which Arabs?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least You're open about Your inability to contradict facts that destroy the Arab narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> What facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
Click to expand...



How about the pogrom of the Jews in Hebron in 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death, as one example?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like today when Arabs-Moslems with weapons and explosives are massing and attacking near the Israeli border threatening to “rip out the hearts” of Jews.
> 
> So yes, Israel is defending itself from those who are attacking.
> 
> You have great difficulty with terms and definition.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a hoot. You know nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hams is just the continuation of Arab Pogroms before the establishment of Israel.
> 
> Nothing different, Arabs were massacring their Palestinian Jewish neighbor before Israel, they still attempt to do so. Nothing changed with the exception that Israel now has a state and an army to oppose these suicidal intentions by Your Jihadi heroes.
> *
> Context is the enemy of the Arab narrative.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dodge from what, Your lame attempt at rewriting history?
> Your narrative can hold no ground faced with facts.
> 
> Arabs -initiated the war - it's in their responsibility to stop it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
Click to expand...


From the donkey's mouth:

*Hamas official " We're half Egyptians half Saudis"
*


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about the pogrom of the Jews in Hebeon in 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death, as one example?
Click to expand...

That was after the Zionist invasion.

What else you got?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> History of the conflict just doesn't start with the 1st Zionist immigration, it starts with the Arab pogroms 40 years prior to that, that were the initial cause for Jewish political international organization as a response to Arab violence against Palestinian Jews.
> 
> Next mistake the Arabs did was join British military invasion of the land, but it's much easier to blame the Jews for all their idiocy and self-defeating choices..
> 
> 
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about the pogrom of the Jews in Hebeon in 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death, as one example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> What else you got?
Click to expand...


How about the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews that - were an initial cause of Zionism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> An event out of context does not help.
> 
> 
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about the pogrom of the Jews in Hebeon in 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death, as one example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> What else you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews that - were an initial cause of Zionism?
Click to expand...

The Palestinians went to Europe for pogroms against the Zionists?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Arab pogroms that initiated Zionism are out of context?
> 
> 
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about the pogrom of the Jews in Hebeon in 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death, as one example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> What else you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews that - were an initial cause of Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians went to Europe for pogroms against the Zionists?
Click to expand...


*Yes, *


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Yes more of the baseless claims - facts show You wrong.
> History doesn't start at 1880.
> 
> Facts show that there were much bigger waves of migration of Arabs
> Facts show that the war started with Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews.
> Facts show that Arab violence was an initial cause of Zionism.
> 
> Fact is You everything You blame the Jews for is a drop in the bucket compared to what Arabs did themselves.
> 
> If you want to talk about racist policies tell us - during which rule did the land see the highest increase in both Arab and Jewish populations? Tell us in which middle eastern Arab country do Jews enjoy (anywhere close) the rights Arab enjoy in Israel?


Here is the official migration record in the 1920's...





...that is the fact.  Here's another one.  At the turn of the last century, the number of Jews in Palestine was only 50,000.

_Despite the anti-Semitism in Europe, only small groups had emigrated to Palestine.... *They numbered perhaps 50,000 at the end of the nineteenth century *...  
_​And here's another fact.  In 1920 there were 580,000 Arabs living in Palestine and at best, only 30,000 Jews. So where is this bigger wave of Arabs you are referring to?

_"Here is a country with 580,000 Arabs and 30,000 or is it 60,000 Jews (by no means all Zionists). _​
As far as racist policies regarding land,

_The King-Crane Commission had reported that Jewish colonists were planning a radical transformation of Palestine:

"The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to *a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine*, by various forms of purchase"  _​
And more to the point...

_"Keren Kayemet draft lease: Employment of Jewish labour only
"... The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the *cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. *Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of compensation ..."

"The lease also provides that the *holding shall never be held by any but a Jew* ..."  
_​So not only were Arabs barred from working on the land, they were also barred from ever buying the land from a Jew.  That to, is a fact.

So my claims are not baseless.
​


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes more of the baseless claims - facts show You wrong.
> History doesn't start at 1880.
> 
> Facts show that there were much bigger waves of migration of Arabs
> Facts show that the war started with Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews.
> Facts show that Arab violence was an initial cause of Zionism.
> 
> Fact is You everything You blame the Jews for is a drop in the bucket compared to what Arabs did themselves.
> 
> If you want to talk about racist policies tell us - during which rule did the land see the highest increase in both Arab and Jewish populations? Tell us in which middle eastern Arab country do Jews enjoy (anywhere close) the rights Arab enjoy in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the official migration record in the 1920's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...that is the fact.  Here's another one.  At the turn of the last century, the number of Jews in Palestine was only 50,000.
> 
> _Despite the anti-Semitism in Europe, only small groups had emigrated to Palestine.... *They numbered perhaps 50,000 at the end of the nineteenth century *...
> _​And here's another fact.  In 1920 there were 580,000 Arabs living in Palestine and at best, only 30,000 Jews. So where is this bigger wave of Arabs you are referring to?
> 
> As far as racist policies regarding land,
> 
> _The King-Crane Commission had reported that Jewish colonists were planning a radical transformation of Palestine:
> 
> "The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to *a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine*, by various forms of purchase"  _​
> And more to the point...
> 
> _"Keren Kayemet draft lease: Employment of Jewish labour only
> "... The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the *cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. *Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of compensation ..."
> 
> "The lease also provides that the *holding shall never be held by any but a Jew* ..."
> _​So not only were Arabs barred from working on the land, they were also barred from ever buying the land from a Jew.  That to, is a fact.
> 
> So my claims are not baseless.
> ​
Click to expand...



And You have a point?
Waves of Arab migrations and pogroms against Palestinian Jews preceded all of that.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> And You have a point?
> Waves of Arab migrations and pogroms against Palestinian Jews preceded all of that.


Maybe in Europe.  But not in Palestine after 1838.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And You have a point?
> Waves of Arab migrations and pogroms against Palestinian Jews preceded all of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Europe.  But not in Palestine after 1838.
Click to expand...


One of You bigger problems is that the bigger You crazy claims are - the easier they are to contradict with FACTS:

The Masarwa clan

 in Arabic : Masarwa  is one of the largest Arab families in Israel. The name of the clan preserves its Egyptian origin.

*History*
The geographical proximity and the fact that the Land of Israel was for centuries under a regime centered in Egypt led to the almost permanent migration of peasants and Bedouins from Egypt to the Land of Israel. Beginning in the 18th century , this immigration increased, culminating in the days of Ibrahim Pasha, who conquered Palestine in 1831 and ruled it until 1840 . Many of his soldiers had deserted and remained in the country, and general immigration had increased since his rule. During the British Mandate many workers were brought from Egypt and some remained in Israel. The rise in the standard of living of the Arabs in the country also had a great influence on the Egyptian fellahs from the delta region, who suffered from great poverty and overcrowding.

The Egyptian immigrants dispersed throughout the country, but mainly concentrated between Tulkarm and Gaza. Some of the names of the villages and the family names of the Arabs in the country testify to the Egyptian origin or hint at a certain place of origin in Egypt. According to Yaakov Shimoni, this group is the largest of the foreign minorities among Muslims in Israel. [1] [2]


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> One of You bigger problems is that the bigger You crazy claims are - the easier they are to contradict with FACTS:
> 
> The Masarwa clan
> 
> in Arabic : Masarwa  is one of the largest Arab families in Israel. The name of the clan preserves its Egyptian origin.
> 
> *History*
> The geographical proximity and the fact that the Land of Israel was for centuries under a regime centered in Egypt led to the almost permanent migration of peasants and Bedouins from Egypt to the Land of Israel. Beginning in the 18th century , this immigration increased, culminating in the days of Ibrahim Pasha, who conquered Palestine in 1831 and ruled it until 1840 . Many of his soldiers had deserted and remained in the country, and general immigration had increased since his rule. During the British Mandate many workers were brought from Egypt and some remained in Israel. The rise in the standard of living of the Arabs in the country also had a great influence on the Egyptian fellahs from the delta region, who suffered from great poverty and overcrowding.
> 
> The Egyptian immigrants dispersed throughout the country, but mainly concentrated between Tulkarm and Gaza. Some of the names of the villages and the family names of the Arabs in the country testify to the Egyptian origin or hint at a certain place of origin in Egypt. According to Yaakov Shimoni, this group is the largest of the foreign minorities among Muslims in Israel. [1] [2]


How could there possibly be a rise in the standard of living for Arabs, when they were not even allowed to work on Jewish land?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of You bigger problems is that the bigger You crazy claims are - the easier they are to contradict with FACTS:
> 
> The Masarwa clan
> 
> in Arabic : Masarwa  is one of the largest Arab families in Israel. The name of the clan preserves its Egyptian origin.
> 
> *History*
> The geographical proximity and the fact that the Land of Israel was for centuries under a regime centered in Egypt led to the almost permanent migration of peasants and Bedouins from Egypt to the Land of Israel. Beginning in the 18th century , this immigration increased, culminating in the days of Ibrahim Pasha, who conquered Palestine in 1831 and ruled it until 1840 . Many of his soldiers had deserted and remained in the country, and general immigration had increased since his rule. During the British Mandate many workers were brought from Egypt and some remained in Israel. The rise in the standard of living of the Arabs in the country also had a great influence on the Egyptian fellahs from the delta region, who suffered from great poverty and overcrowding.
> 
> The Egyptian immigrants dispersed throughout the country, but mainly concentrated between Tulkarm and Gaza. Some of the names of the villages and the family names of the Arabs in the country testify to the Egyptian origin or hint at a certain place of origin in Egypt. According to Yaakov Shimoni, this group is the largest of the foreign minorities among Muslims in Israel. [1] [2]
> 
> 
> 
> How could there possibly be a rise in the standard of living for Arabs, when they were not even allowed to work on Jewish land?
Click to expand...


With Jewish investment and transformation of the land, the average income rose in folds compared to Arab countries in th neighborhood.

Everything rose to higher level, from investment of government to average daily work-wage.
Today there're more Arabs and Jews  living in the land than ever in history under Arab rule.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Arab pogroms? What was the context?
> 
> Like today. Israel is always "defending itself" from the people it is attacking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the pogrom of the Jews in Hebeon in 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death, as one example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> What else you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews that - were an initial cause of Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians went to Europe for pogroms against the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, *
Click to expand...

You are late in the game.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the pogrom of the Jews in Hebeon in 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death, as one example?
> 
> 
> 
> That was after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> What else you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews that - were an initial cause of Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians went to Europe for pogroms against the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are late in the game.
Click to expand...


How so?
Arab pogroms initiated Zionism,
what followed was just the continuation of the same.

That You always run away from facts only shows how self-defeating are Your one liners.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> What else you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews that - were an initial cause of Zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians went to Europe for pogroms against the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are late in the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> Arab pogroms initiated Zionism,
> what followed was just the continuation of the same.
> 
> That You always run away from facts only shows how self-defeating are Your one liners.
Click to expand...

WWII was 40 years too late.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews that - were an initial cause of Zionism?
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians went to Europe for pogroms against the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are late in the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> Arab pogroms initiated Zionism,
> what followed was just the continuation of the same.
> 
> That You always run away from facts only shows how self-defeating are Your one liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WWII was 40 years too late.
Click to expand...

The invention of “Pal’istanian“ as a nationality, (invented by an Egyptian), was too late to fool anyone.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews that - were an initial cause of Zionism?
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians went to Europe for pogroms against the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are late in the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> Arab pogroms initiated Zionism,
> what followed was just the continuation of the same.
> 
> That You always run away from facts only shows how self-defeating are Your one liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WWII was 40 years too late.
Click to expand...


And yet that was nothing different from Arab pogroms prior to Zionism.
Same antisemitic blood libels, same target.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> With Jewish investment and transformation of the land, the average income rose in folds compared to Arab countries in th neighborhood.
> 
> Everything rose to higher level, from investment of government to average daily work-wage.


Maybe on the Jewish side, but definitely not on the Arab side.



rylah said:


> Today there're more Arabs and Jews  living in the land than ever in history under Arab rule.


What Arab rule?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> With Jewish investment and transformation of the land, the average income rose in folds compared to Arab countries in th neighborhood.
> 
> Everything rose to higher level, from investment of government to average daily work-wage.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe on the Jewish side, but definitely not on the Arab side.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today there're more Arabs and Jews  living in the land than ever in history under Arab rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Arab rule?
Click to expand...


Maybe we should compare numbers, the size Arab population at it's peak prior to liberation of Israel vs size of Arab population today in the land.
And the amount of income, product , trade before and after.

Do You have those numbers?


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> What Arab rule?



Q.You don't know that the land was conquer by Arabs? 
So stubborn to show that You have no basic knowledge whatsoever about the subject 







(PA president Mahmoud Abbas)

Abbas tribe

The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.




Abbasid Caliphate - Wikipedia


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Maybe we should compare numbers, the size Arab population at it's peak prior to liberation of Israel vs size of Arab population today in the land.
> And the amount of income, product , trade before and after.
> 
> Do You have those numbers?


It is just lunacy to claim Arab economics is better when almost half their population was driven from the area by Jewish terrorists.


----------



## Billo_Really

Q.You don't know that the land was conquer by Arabs? 
So stubborn to show that You have no basic knowledge whatsoever about the subject 







(PA president Mahmoud Abbas)

Abbas tribe

The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.




Abbasid Caliphate - Wikipedia[/QUOTE]That has nothing to do with the creation of Israel.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should compare numbers, the size Arab population at it's peak prior to liberation of Israel vs size of Arab population today in the land.
> And the amount of income, product , trade before and after.
> 
> Do You have those numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> It is just lunacy to claim Arab economics is better when almost half their population was driven from the area by Jewish terrorists.
Click to expand...



I'm not suggesting anything, all I'm saying bring the numbers and let's compare:

the size Arab population at it's peak prior to liberation of Israel vs size of Arab population today in the land. And the amount of income, product , trade before and after.

I think I was very clear.


----------



## rylah

(PA president Mahmoud Abbas)

Abbas tribe

The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.




Abbasid Caliphate - Wikipedia



Billo_Really said:


> ]That has nothing to do with the creation of Israel.



That was You who asked about the Arab rule and conquest of the land.
I brought the relevant information - You can like it or not.

Q. Maybe You wanted me to mention another Arab invasion?


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> I'm not suggesting anything, all I'm saying bring the numbers and let's compare:
> 
> the size Arab population at it's peak prior to liberation of Israel vs size of Arab population today in the land. And the amount of income, product , trade before and after.
> 
> I think I was very clear.


You bring in the numbers, since you're the one referring to them.  Back up your claim.  Walk your talk.

BTW, there was no liberation of Israel.  Israel didn't exist until 1948.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> (PA president Mahmoud Abbas)
> 
> Abbas tribe
> 
> The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbasid Caliphate - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]That has nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was You who asked about the Arab rule and conquest of the land.
> I brought the relevant information - You can like it or not.
> 
> Q. Maybe You wanted me to mention another Arab invasion?
Click to expand...

I think I was clear.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PA president Mahmoud Abbas)
> 
> Abbas tribe
> 
> The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbasid Caliphate - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]That has nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was You who asked about the Arab rule and conquest of the land.
> I brought the relevant information - You can like it or not.
> 
> Q. Maybe You wanted me to mention another Arab invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I was clear.
Click to expand...

Then let me make my point clear:

Jews liberating their land from foreign rule is the heart and soul of Zionism.
It has everything to do with the creation of Israel.

Are You still looking for the numbers to compare Arab population and economy prior to Zionism?


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Then let me make my point clear:
> 
> Jews liberating their land from foreign rule is the heart and soul of Zionism.
> It has everything to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> Are You still looking for the numbers to compare Arab population and economy prior to Zionism?


There was no liberation.  Jewish terrorists went to work after the British left the area driving non-Jewish residents to abandon homes they had been living in for generations.  That is not liberation.  That is terrorism.

And I told you, those are your numbers, you provide them.


----------



## rylah

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let me make my point clear:
> 
> Jews liberating their land from foreign rule is the heart and soul of Zionism.
> It has everything to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> Are You still looking for the numbers to compare Arab population and economy prior to Zionism?
> 
> 
> 
> There was no liberation.  Jewish terrorists went to work after the British left the area driving non-Jewish residents to abandon homes they had been living in for generations.  That is not liberation.  That is terrorism.
> 
> And I told you, those are your numbers, you provide them.
Click to expand...


Of course it was liberation:

It were the Arabs who aided British invasion of the land.
It were the Jews who kicked the Brits out.

Arabs kept fighting Jews...

Believe me it was oh so liberating for Palestinian Jews to get rid of Arab Muslim rule, Turkish rule and British rule.


----------



## Billo_Really

rylah said:


> Of course it was liberation:
> 
> It were the Arabs who aided British invasion of the land.
> It were the Jews who kicked the Brits out.
> 
> Arabs kept fighting Jews...
> 
> Believe me it was oh so liberating for Palestinian Jews to get rid of Arab Muslim rule, Turkish rule and British rule.


So Jews kicked out the Brits?  

Was it payback for the Balfour Declaration?


----------



## Hollie

Billo_Really said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let me make my point clear:
> 
> Jews liberating their land from foreign rule is the heart and soul of Zionism.
> It has everything to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> Are You still looking for the numbers to compare Arab population and economy prior to Zionism?
> 
> 
> 
> There was no liberation.  Jewish terrorists went to work after the British left the area driving non-Jewish residents to abandon homes they had been living in for generations.  That is not liberation.  That is terrorism.
> 
> And I told you, those are your numbers, you provide them.
Click to expand...

Of course there was liberation for the Jewish people. The Mandate marked the end of the Ottoman (islamic fascist) rule and the end of an oppressive system of dhimmitude imposed by the Islamist colonial project.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hollie said:


> Of course there was liberation for the Jewish people. The Mandate marked the end of the Ottoman (islamic fascist) rule and the end of an oppressive system of dhimmitude imposed by the Islamist colonial project.


There was no liberation.  There was a Zionist invasion that targeted existing non-Jewish residents and drove 750,000 of them out of the area through the use of Jewish terrorism.  Zionists were the colonists.  Palestinian-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs were the natives.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> (PA president Mahmoud Abbas)
> 
> Abbas tribe
> 
> The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbasid Caliphate - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]That has nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was You who asked about the Arab rule and conquest of the land.
> I brought the relevant information - You can like it or not.
> 
> Q. Maybe You wanted me to mention another Arab invasion?
Click to expand...

Abbas is too worthless to mention.


----------



## Hollie

Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there was liberation for the Jewish people. The Mandate marked the end of the Ottoman (islamic fascist) rule and the end of an oppressive system of dhimmitude imposed by the Islamist colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no liberation.  There was a Zionist invasion that targeted existing non-Jewish residents and drove 750,000 of them out of the area through the use of Jewish terrorism.  Zionists were the colonists.  Palestinian-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs were the natives.
Click to expand...


The ”invasion” slogan is popular with you madrassah attendees.

Odd how none of you can get past silly slogans.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PA president Mahmoud Abbas)
> 
> Abbas tribe
> 
> The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbasid Caliphate - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]That has nothing to do with the creation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was You who asked about the Arab rule and conquest of the land.
> I brought the relevant information - You can like it or not.
> 
> Q. Maybe You wanted me to mention another Arab invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abbas is too worthless to mention.
Click to expand...


He’s your hero. Embrace your pathology.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hollie said:


> The ”invasion” slogan is popular with you madrassah attendees.
> 
> Odd how none of you can get past silly slogans.


It's more than a slogan.  It was Zionists who migrated into the area in the thousands.


----------



## Hollie

Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ”invasion” slogan is popular with you madrassah attendees.
> 
> Odd how none of you can get past silly slogans.
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than a slogan.  It was Zionists who migrated into the area in the thousands.
Click to expand...


I see you have abandoned your pointless "invasion" slogan. 

Arabs-moslems also migrated to the area. I think everyone gets it. You're just a mere pedestrian, regular Jew hater who wants to rewrite history. 

Go whine and complain to someone who cares, like the other lovely folks at your madrassah.


----------



## Billo_Really

Hollie said:


> I see you have abandoned your pointless "invasion" slogan.
> 
> Arabs-moslems also migrated to the area. I think everyone gets it. You're just a mere pedestrian, regular Jew hater who wants to rewrite history.
> 
> Go whine and complain to someone who cares, like the other lovely folks at your madrassah.


Here's the official migration records for the 1920's...






And here's the link to those records.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see Zionists were the larger migration crowd, by far.


----------



## Hollie

Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have abandoned your pointless "invasion" slogan.
> 
> Arabs-moslems also migrated to the area. I think everyone gets it. You're just a mere pedestrian, regular Jew hater who wants to rewrite history.
> 
> Go whine and complain to someone who cares, like the other lovely folks at your madrassah.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the official migration records for the 1920's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's the link to those records.
> 
> You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see Zionists were the larger migration crowd, by far.
Click to expand...


“Migration”. So, you agree that the silly “invasion” slogan that you recite during your koranology lessons at the madrassah make you look rather, how shall we say, “buffoonish”?


----------



## Billo_Really

Hollie said:


> “Migration”. So, you agree that the silly “invasion” slogan that you recite during your koranology lessons at the madrassah make you look rather, how shall we say, “buffoonish”?


You waffle more than IHOP.


----------



## Hollie

Billo_Really said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Migration”. So, you agree that the silly “invasion” slogan that you recite during your koranology lessons at the madrassah make you look rather, how shall we say, “buffoonish”?
> 
> 
> 
> You waffle more than IHOP.
Click to expand...


I’m just noting that it was you who quickly backpeddled and not just waffled but entirely abandoned the silly “invasion” slogan when you were given the facts. 

I’m glad to lend an assist. When you get befuddled, raise your hand and ask for help.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

rylah said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Arab rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q.You don't know that the land was conquer by Arabs?
> So stubborn to show that You have no basic knowledge whatsoever about the subject
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PA president Mahmoud Abbas)
> 
> Abbas tribe
> 
> The *Banu Abbas* (Arabic: بنو عباس‎) are an Arabian tribe, descendants of Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib. The caliphs of the Banu Abbas served as heads of the Muslim community for a period of five centuries (from 750 until the sack of Baghdad in 1258).[2] This was the Abbasid caliphate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbasid Caliphate - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

*The Third World Is the Enemy of Our Species*

When the Mongols captured Baghdad in 1258, they executed all two million of its inhabitants.  Later they converted to Islam.  This is the kind of subhumans who are attracted to that creed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*History of Israel Stolen Land of Palestine by Ilan Pappe*

**


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> *History of Israel Stolen Land of Palestine by Ilan Pappe*
> 
> **


[  Tinmore's HERO }

At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.

(full article online)

The Liar as Hero


----------



## rylah

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *History of Israel Stolen Land of Palestine by Ilan Pappe*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> [  Tinmore's HERO }
> 
> At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The Liar as Hero
Click to expand...

Again who put every possible obstacle for Jews to become a majority during the Aliyah period?
Arabs, Turks and Brits.

If Arab immigration was treated anywhere as the Jewish one this would put groups in similar terms,
Arabs had no problem with immigration of of Muslims from Bosnia or Egypt, but when Jews from Baghdad, Morocco, Greece and Yemen immigrated they were viewed as a special category, with less rights at the Arab request.

In total opposition to what was the initial policy of the mandate,
regarding both sides of the river. Jews were banned from presence in most of the land and becoming a natural majority while Arabs were freely moving from neighboring countries.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The word “Nakba” though, has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli war in 1948. The prominent Arab historian George Antonius coined the term already in *1920*, almost three decades before David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the existence of the first Jewish state in 2000 years.

Antonius who was a passionate Arab nationalist, coined the term “Nakba” as a response to the separation of the British Mandate Palestine from French-controlled Syria. The reason that Antonius considered this territorial division between Britain and France to constitute a “disaster” was that he defined himself and the local Arab population in the British Palestine Mandate as Syrians and an inseparable part of greater Syria.








Like other Arab nationalists of his time, Antonius was by no means sympathetic towards Jews or the Zionist Jewish national liberation movement. However, as far as Antonius and other local Arab nationalists were concerned, places like Jerusalem, Yafo and Haifa were not located in “Palestine” but constituted the southern part of Syria. Antonius was certainly not the only Arab intellectual who rejected the notion of “Palestine”.

Already in *1919*, the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem to elect local representatives for the international Peace Conference in Paris. During the meeting, the following resolution was adopted by local Arab leaders:

“We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds.”

Fast-forward to *1937* when the local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi addressed the British Peel commission, which suggested a partition of the British Palestine Mandate:

“There is no such country (as Palestine)! “Palestine is a term that the Zionist invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”

In *1946*, the prominent Arab-American Princeton professor Philip Hitti, testified against partition to the Anglo-American Committee with the following candid statement: “There is no such thing as “Palestine” in history, absolutely not.”

Arab leaders’ candid remarks on “Palestine” continued after the establishment of Israel. In an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March *1977*, the senior PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen addressed the issue of a “Palestinian people”: “Between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of ONE people, the Arab nation. Look, I have family members with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are ONE people. Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity.”

Despite serious political differences with PLO, Hamas has also admitted the cosmopolitan nature of the local Arab population west of the Jordan River. During an interview with Al-Hekma TV, Hamas Minister of the Interior, Fathi Hammad sought pan-Arab support by stressing their blood ties: “Half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.”

Ironically, it was a non-Arab who paved the way to the current inversion of the Nakba term as equaling alleged Arab suffering at Jewish hands. In his major work “A Study of History”, the anti-Semitic British historian Arnold Toynbee compared Israel’s treatment of the Arabs during the *1948* war with the Nazi extermination of the Jews. The same Toynbee, who after the Second World War demonized Zionist Jews as “Nazis”, willingly accepted a private interview with Adolf Hitler in Berlin in *1936.*


(full article online)

Real ”Nakba” Debunks ”Palestine” Myth


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
※→ Sixties Fan, _et al,_

Thanks very much → "Sixties Fan" for pointing to this article,  I found it well worth the time to read.


			
				MIDA News Journal said:
			
		

> *Hamas’ “March of Return” was cynically fueled by the powerful Nakba myth. Ironically, the original meaning of Nakba debunks the myth of a distinct Arab nation in the Land of Israel.*



Yes, this article is probably one of the better articles I've seen on the "Current Event."   The _algemeiner_ lists a number of articles written by Daniel Krygier ; who is not only a journalist and author
→ but more of a contemporary writer of his day.



Sixties Fan said:


> Ironically, it was a non-Arab who paved the way to the current inversion of the Nakba term as equaling alleged Arab suffering at Jewish hands. In his major work “A Study of History”, the anti-Semitic British historian Arnold Toynbee compared Israel’s treatment of the Arabs during the *1948* war with the Nazi extermination of the Jews. The same Toynbee, who after the Second World War demonized Zionist Jews as “Nazis”, willingly accepted a private interview with Adolf Hitler in Berlin in *1936.*
> 
> Real ”Nakba” Debunks ”Palestine” Myth


*(COMMENT)*

Journalists often are motivated to interview monsters, NAZIs, demons, pedophiles, serial killers and all manner of jihadists, just for a story; but → Professor AJ Toynbee was more the armchair historian who you would find haunting those dark and eerie library stacks of old books.  The Professor will latch onto an idea → and like a rabid dog with lockjaw → will not let go.

ANY WAY, the article was a great contribution by "Sixties Fan."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?


It might help if one could actually understand what the Arab Nakba is and when it actually began, and why.

What is the difference between what the Arabs called the Nakba in 1920, and what the called the Nakba in 1948?

Why do they not mention  the Nakba of 1920?


----------



## Coyote

Sixties Fan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
> 
> 
> 
> It might help if one could actually understand what the Arab Nakba is and when it actually began, and why.
> 
> What is the difference between what the Arabs called the Nakba in 1920, and what the called the Nakba in 1948?
> 
> Why do they not mention  the Nakba of 1920?
Click to expand...

It is their narrative, it is up to them to define it, not us.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Coyote said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
> 
> 
> 
> It might help if one could actually understand what the Arab Nakba is and when it actually began, and why.
> 
> What is the difference between what the Arabs called the Nakba in 1920, and what the called the Nakba in 1948?
> 
> Why do they not mention  the Nakba of 1920?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is their narrative, it is up to them to define it, not us.
Click to expand...

Narrative is different from history.  Which is what the two dates show. It is history of their usage of the word.
Both dates have meanings, but only one is used by the Muslims.


The main issue being that the Arab Muslims are also very intent in defining what the Jewish narrative is, what Zionism means, who is indigenous, etc etc.....

They want to define their "narrative", never mind their history, and then define Jewish history, saying that it is also a narrative.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Beyond the great divide, a trip inside the Palestinian areas


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Jewish people rejected ancient Greece, ancient Rome, Christianity, and Islam thus providing impetus to find fault with the Jewish people which quickly morphed into outright persecution. Modern Jew-hate is no different, that too is a reaction to a people who retain their “otherness”, sticking to their morals, values, and nationhood when socialist/globalist influences imply that it is wrong to do so.

“Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorned.”

The Jewish people began returning to Zion as soon as they could.

My grandmother grew up in British Mandate Palestine (a name given twice to this land in attempt to disconnect the Jews from Zion, a name that is now being used again, for the same reason). As a young girl she felt the cruel ambivalence of British soldiers who laughed as she, just 12 years old, was running for her life, trying to escape an Arab lynch mob. Instead of helping her, they took bets on the odds of the child being able to outrun the men chasing her with knives in their hands.

The day after the State of Israel was officially declared the Arabs of the land rose up in attempt to destroy the newly birthed country. Everyone was surprised when they did not succeed.

(full article online)

We won’t play that game anymore


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  Coyote, _et al,_

I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides.  And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions.  Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace.  In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" _(preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks)_ is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians _(not the Israelis)_.

No matter what the Israelis _(or the entire world)_ may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance.  The past cannot be changed.

Borders  √  
Jerusalem  √  
Political Prisoners  √ 
Refugees  √



Coyote said:


> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?


*(COMMENT)*

Pre-Conditions thus far also include:

✪  Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
✪  East Jerusalem as its capital.
✪  Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.​
*(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)*

Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades.  The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries _(the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II)_.   The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties.  The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...

The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.

The release of twelve -- hundred would fly in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon.  And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope."  _[A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.] 
_
I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

Arab residents of eastern Jerusalem petitioned the Supreme Court on Sunday to reverse a lower court decision affirming the rights of Jewish owners over property in the Silwan neighborhood of the capital.

In the late 1800s, Jewish immigrants from Yemen were settled on land in the old Shiloach (Silwan) area of Jerusalem, near the Old City. The land was purchased on their behalf by Jewish donors, managed by the Benvenisti Trust.

During the 1948 War of Independence, the Jordanian Arab Legion expelled the Jewish residents of eastern Jerusalem, including the families living on property owned by the Benvenisti Trust.

Since the 1980s, the Ateret Cohanim organization has sought to redeem property in and around the Old City, including real estate owned by Jews but occupied by Arabs following the 1948 war.

While Ateret Cohanim has managed to recover some of the property taken from Jewish residents in 1948, lengthy legal battles have hampered efforts to redeem homes owned by the Benvenisti Trust.

One section of Silwan (Shiloach), known as the Batan al-Hawa area, was owned by the trust, which through Ateret Cohanim sought to remove Arab squatters from its properties.

A decision by the Justice Ministry sixteen years ago affirmed the Benvenisti Trust’s ownership of the property, which was released to Ateret Cohanim. Despite appeals by the squatters, lower court rulings have upheld the Justice Ministry’s decision.

(full article online)

J'lem Arabs demand court award them ownership of Jewish land


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Coyote, _et al,_
> 
> I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides.  And it seems to me that the Israeilis never treat eith the people or the conflict as a trrivial or insignificant set of conditions.  Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace.  In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognize that the "default" _(preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks)_ is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians _(not the Israelis)_.
> 
> No matter what the Israelis _(or the entire world)_ may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance.  The past cannot be changed.
> 
> Borders  √
> Jerusalem  √
> Political Prisoners  √
> Refugees  √
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pre-Conditions thus far also include:
> 
> ✪  Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
> ✪  East Jerusalem as its capital.
> ✪  Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.​
> *(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)*
> 
> Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades.  The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries _(the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II)_.   The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties.  The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...
> 
> The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.
> 
> The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheezefrom the moon.  And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope."  _[A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]
> _
> I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  Coyote, _et al,_

OH, this is foolish.  First, I did not say anything about winning or losing. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides.  And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions.  Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace.  In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" _(preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks)_ is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians _(not the Israelis)_.
> 
> No matter what the Israelis _(or the entire world)_ may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance.  The past cannot be changed.
> 
> Borders  √
> Jerusalem  √
> Political Prisoners  √
> Refugees  √
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pre-Conditions thus far also include:
> 
> ✪  Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
> ✪  East Jerusalem as its capital.
> ✪  Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.​
> *(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)*
> 
> Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades.  The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries _(the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II)_.   The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties.  The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...
> 
> The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.
> 
> The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon.  And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope."  _[A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]
> _
> I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You've read the treaty.   AND   You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.

What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel.  I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them.  _(If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)_

So, I ask.  WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Coyote, _et al,_
> 
> OH, this is foolish.  First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides.  And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions.  Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace.  In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" _(preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks)_ is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians _(not the Israelis)_.
> 
> No matter what the Israelis _(or the entire world)_ may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance.  The past cannot be changed.
> 
> Borders  √
> Jerusalem  √
> Political Prisoners  √
> Refugees  √
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pre-Conditions thus far also include:
> 
> ✪  Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
> ✪  East Jerusalem as its capital.
> ✪  Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.​
> *(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)*
> 
> Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades.  The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries _(the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II)_.   The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties.  The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...
> 
> The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.
> 
> The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon.  And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope."  _[A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]
> _
> I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You've read the treaty.   AND   You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.
> 
> What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel.  I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them.  _(If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)_
> 
> So, I ask.  WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Umh Rocco...that isnt my post...


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ Coyote, 

My apologies...



Coyote said:


> Umh Rocco...that isnt my post...


*(APOLOGY)*

I wasn't paying attention.  I meant no insult.

Very Sincerely,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Coyote, _et al,_
> 
> OH, this is foolish.  First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides.  And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions.  Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace.  In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" _(preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks)_ is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians _(not the Israelis)_.
> 
> No matter what the Israelis _(or the entire world)_ may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance.  The past cannot be changed.
> 
> Borders  √
> Jerusalem  √
> Political Prisoners  √
> Refugees  √
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pre-Conditions thus far also include:
> 
> ✪  Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
> ✪  East Jerusalem as its capital.
> ✪  Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.​
> *(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)*
> 
> Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades.  The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries _(the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II)_.   The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties.  The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...
> 
> The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.
> 
> The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon.  And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope."  _[A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]
> _
> I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You've read the treaty.   AND   You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.
> 
> What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel.  I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them.  _(If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)_
> 
> So, I ask.  WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> You've read the treaty.


What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Coyote, _et al,_
> 
> OH, this is foolish.  First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides.  And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions.  Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace.  In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" _(preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks)_ is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians _(not the Israelis)_.
> 
> No matter what the Israelis _(or the entire world)_ may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance.  The past cannot be changed.
> 
> Borders  √
> Jerusalem  √
> Political Prisoners  √
> Refugees  √
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pre-Conditions thus far also include:
> 
> ✪  Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
> ✪  East Jerusalem as its capital.
> ✪  Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.​
> *(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)*
> 
> Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades.  The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries _(the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II)_.   The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties.  The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...
> 
> The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.
> 
> The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon.  And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope."  _[A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]
> _
> I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You've read the treaty.   AND   You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.
> 
> What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel.  I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them.  _(If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)_
> 
> So, I ask.  WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've read the treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?
Click to expand...

It was Jewish Land, for over 3000 years.

Try another one of your catchy tunes.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Coyote, _et al,_
> 
> OH, this is foolish.  First, I did not say anything about winning or losing.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to think about this for a while → before addressing as it is viewed by both sides.  And it seems to me that the Israelis never treat with the people or the conflict as a trivial or insignificant set of conditions.  Nor do the Israelis consider the "Question of the Palestinians" as a peripheral to the achievement of peace.  In fact, it would appear, as a matter of the conditions that are necessary for negotiations for peace, that the Israelis had recognized that the "default" _(preselected options adopted as set by the Arab Palestinians to begin peace talks)_ is in the hands of the Arab Palestinians _(not the Israelis)_.
> 
> No matter what the Israelis _(or the entire world)_ may think of the "Nakba" → the view itself, has no bearing on the essence of the peace and its maintenance.  The past cannot be changed.
> 
> Borders  √
> Jerusalem  √
> Political Prisoners  √
> Refugees  √
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nakba myth?  That seems like another way of marginalizing the Palestinians.  Should we call the Jewish expulsions a myth?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pre-Conditions thus far also include:
> 
> ✪  Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
> ✪  East Jerusalem as its capital.
> ✪  Release of 1,200 more Palestinian prisoners. the officials said.​
> *(ASKING FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE)*
> 
> Essentially, the Arab Palestinians are asking for a "do over" spanning the last seven decades.  The Arab Palestinian want the reset to be the 1948 Boundaries _(the pre-1967 Boundaries = the 1948 Boundaries in A/RES/181 II)_.   The 1948 Israeli War of Independence and resolved by the principle government through treaties.  The Armistice Lines were agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party; ie Israel-Egypt or Israeli-Jordan...
> 
> The settlement of Jerusalem is already overtaken by events.
> 
> The release of twelve -- hundred would flight in the face of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of national and international law, in particular, human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
> 
> Asking for these things is about as meaningful as asking for cheese from the moon.  And the is evidence that the effort put forth by the Arab Palestinians is "false hope."  _[A negotiation technique of false promises (to enter into talks) with no intention of keeping that promise of good faith.]
> _
> I suspect that, almost everyone, actually given the facts, would agree that the Arab Palestinians have set conditions such as to intentionally obstruct.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The clunker in this post is that you assume that Israel won Palestinian land in 1948. There is no evidence to support this assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You've read the treaty.   AND   You know which nation now assumes sovereignty over what territory.
> 
> What is really important is, any Israeli knows what territory is sovereign unto Israel.  I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians know what territory is sovereign unto them.  _(If, in deed, they have any sovereignty.)_
> 
> So, I ask.  WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've read the treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?
Click to expand...


Why, "Palestinians" doesn't mean Jews as well?
Palestinian Jews gave their lands, property and full support to Israel.
Leaders of the Jews in the land all participated in the creation of the state.

The treaty is circumcision and keeping the laws of the land.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

You have this backwards.



			
				UK Government said:
			
		

> *•  UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT  •*
> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.





P F Tinmore said:


> What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?



*(COMMENT)*

It was NOT "Palestinian Land."  _(This ownership claim is often made by pro-Palestinians.)_  The Armistice Argeements were between the belligerents.  The peace treaties cover those engagements.

All Arab Palestinians want to box-up the treaties, because they have explicite findings on the International boundaries. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Coyote, _et al,_
> 
> You have this backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK Government said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *•  UK MEMORANDUM NAMES COMMISSION AS SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT  •*
> The Government of the United Kingdom, in a memorandum on the "Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate", has advised the United Nations Palestine Commission that so fas the Mandatory Power is concerned the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine after 15 May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What treaty gave Palestinian land to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It was NOT "Palestinian Land."  _(This ownership claim is often made by pro-Palestinians.)_  The Armistice Argeements were between the belligerents.  The peace treaties cover those engagements.
> 
> All Arab Palestinians want to box-up the treaties, because they have explicite findings on the International boundaries.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> It was NOT "Palestinian Land


Then whose was it?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

We've gone over this a zillion times.



P F Tinmore said:


> Then whose was it?
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

The territory was in the hands of the Allied Powers for final dispsition.  In the case of 15 May 1948, it transitioned from the care of the UK as its Mandatory to the UN Palistine Commission working under the Security Council in the accomplishment of the Step Preparatory for Independence of Israel.  The Arab Higher Committee _(Palestinian)_ rejected any participation in the Steps Preparatory to Independence; their decision → in keeping with the all the previous rejections of participation in nation building since 1922 _(three just in the first year)_.

It was becoming something beyond the abiity of the Arab Palestinians to grasp.  Since you cannot grasp that, it makes no matter as long as you understand that it was not under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians (ever).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> We've gone over this a zillion times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then whose was it?
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The territory was in the hands of the Allied Powers for final dispsition.  In the case of 15 May 1948, it transitioned from the care of the UK as its Mandatory to the UN Palistine Commission working under the Security Council in the accomplishment of the Step Preparatory for Independence of Israel.  The Arab Higher Committee _(Palestinian)_ rejected any participation in the Steps Preparatory to Independence; their decision → in keeping with the all the previous rejections of participation in nation building since 1922 _(three just in the first year)_.
> 
> It was becoming something beyond the abiity of the Arab Palestinians to grasp.  Since you cannot grasp that, it makes no matter as long as you understand that it was not under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians (ever).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> In the case of 15 May 1948, it transitioned from the care of the UK as its Mandatory to the UN Palistine Commission working under the Security Council in the accomplishment of the Step Preparatory for Independence of Israel.


That was part of resolution 181 that was not implemented.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

OK, you have to read this very closely.  They use small words.



P F Tinmore said:


> That was part of resolution 181 that was not implemented.


*(COMMENT)*

I've emphasized the most important sentence.



> UNITED NATIONS
> Department of Public Information
> Press and Publications Bureau
> Lake Success, New York
> Press Release PAL/169
> 17 May 1948
> 
> *PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE*
> 
> 
> The Palestine Commission, at its 75th Meeting today, adjourned sine die. The action came at 4:06 P.M. after a thirty-five minute meeting. The first meeting of the Commission had been on January 9.
> 
> In adjourning the Commission, Dr. Karel Lisicky (Czechoslovakia), the Chairman said: "We disperse with our conscience clear. We have no fear about the judgment of history."
> 
> It was the general view of the Commission members that the General Assembly resolution of last November 29 remained intact and that therefore the Commission was not and could not be legally dissolved.
> 
> The text of the General Assembly resolution adopted last Friday night as it refers to the Commission reads:
> 
> 
> 
> "The General Assembly,
> 
> "Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,
> 
> "Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."
> 
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been *implemented*."
> 
> Dr. Paul Diez de Medina (Bolivia) said that the Assembly last Friday did only two things. First, he said, "it appointed a mediator between the parties and that in itself is reaffirmation of partition." The second part of the reference to the Commission expressed appreciation for the work performed, and that, he said, was also reaffirmation for partition.
> 
> Dr. Lisicky said that "in view of the fact that we legally cannot disband ourselves, we shall be dead under the legal fiction that we continue."
> 
> It was pointed out that at a later stage the Assembly might decide to revive the Commission, or a similar body.
> 
> There were a number of outstanding matters still before the Commission and Per Federspiel (Denmark) said that a number of legal decisions had been made either by the Commission or the former Mandatory and that it should be quite clear where matters were left.
> 
> Dr. Lisicky and Dr. Morgan paid tribute for all members of the Commission to the work of the Secretariat, and Dr. Lisicky thanked the members of the Commission. Dr. Ralph Bunche, Principal Secretary of the Commission, in turn, said the Secretariat was happy to have worked with the Palestine Commission. The meeting then adjourned sine die.
> *Source:* *United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)*
> *17 May 1948*



I know that the Arab Palestinians like to ignore any official communica that does not conform to their version of history.  But this peice of misinformation you spread is easily refuted.  The Pro-Palestinian arguement is based on the mistaken belief that BOTH the Jewish and Arab sides had to approve and accept.  That is simply not the case.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> OK, you have to read this very closely.  They use small words.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was part of resolution 181 that was not implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've emphasized the most important sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS
> Department of Public Information
> Press and Publications Bureau
> Lake Success, New York
> Press Release PAL/169
> 17 May 1948
> 
> *PALESTINE COMMISSION ADJOURNS SINE DIE*
> 
> 
> The Palestine Commission, at its 75th Meeting today, adjourned sine die. The action came at 4:06 P.M. after a thirty-five minute meeting. The first meeting of the Commission had been on January 9.
> 
> In adjourning the Commission, Dr. Karel Lisicky (Czechoslovakia), the Chairman said: "We disperse with our conscience clear. We have no fear about the judgment of history."
> 
> It was the general view of the Commission members that the General Assembly resolution of last November 29 remained intact and that therefore the Commission was not and could not be legally dissolved.
> 
> The text of the General Assembly resolution adopted last Friday night as it refers to the Commission reads:
> 
> 
> 
> "The General Assembly,
> 
> "Having adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,
> 
> "Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly."
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been *implemented*."
> 
> Dr. Paul Diez de Medina (Bolivia) said that the Assembly last Friday did only two things. First, he said, "it appointed a mediator between the parties and that in itself is reaffirmation of partition." The second part of the reference to the Commission expressed appreciation for the work performed, and that, he said, was also reaffirmation for partition.
> 
> Dr. Lisicky said that "in view of the fact that we legally cannot disband ourselves, we shall be dead under the legal fiction that we continue."
> 
> It was pointed out that at a later stage the Assembly might decide to revive the Commission, or a similar body.
> 
> There were a number of outstanding matters still before the Commission and Per Federspiel (Denmark) said that a number of legal decisions had been made either by the Commission or the former Mandatory and that it should be quite clear where matters were left.
> 
> Dr. Lisicky and Dr. Morgan paid tribute for all members of the Commission to the work of the Secretariat, and Dr. Lisicky thanked the members of the Commission. Dr. Ralph Bunche, Principal Secretary of the Commission, in turn, said the Secretariat was happy to have worked with the Palestine Commission. The meeting then adjourned sine die.
> *Source:* *United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC)*
> *17 May 1948*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that the Arab Palestinians like to ignore any official communica that does not conform to their version of history.  But this peice of misinformation you spread is easily refuted.  The Pro-Palestinian arguement is based on the mistaken belief that BOTH the Jewish and Arab sides had to approve and accept.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I know, you have posted this many times. But facts on the ground and other documents say otherwise. Like neither Britain nor the Security Council would implement it. The US withdrew its support and was offering different suggestions. Of all the things that had to be done, none of it was done.

You can post that as many times as you want but resolution 181 didn't happen.


----------



## watchingfromafar

RoccoR said:


> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???



All of Palestine


----------



## watchingfromafar

*International law and Israeli settlements*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]

*International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*

Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
Click to expand...




watchingfromafar said:


> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yep P F Tinmore   , so simple and still nothing to refute.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
Click to expand...


Aren’t you the clown who insists that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pally’land”?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren’t you the clown who insists that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pally’land”?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore, Hollie, _et al,_

Whatever the reason, pro-Palestinians like the organism HAMAS, wants to be truthful, or in the case --- they want to be truthful again; but simply cannot make it.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren’t you the clown who insists that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pally’land”?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATIONS)*

While •  Posting 33 •  RE:  One State only goes back to the beginning of 2015, you've made the exact same point many times before then and many time after; as in •  Posting 126  • RE: Israel's Independence Day!. 

Each of these examples triggered a long debate, as have the ones that came before and the one's that came after.

I'm not saying there is a case of the Pinocchio Syndrome; but, I'm chuckling from the sidelines.


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, Hollie, _et al,_
> 
> Whatever the reason, pro-Palestinians like the organism HAMAS, wants to be truthful, or in the case --- they want to be truthful again; but simply cannot make it.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren’t you the clown who insists that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pally’land”?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> While •  Posting 33 •  RE:  One State only goes back to the beginning of 2015, you've made the exact same point many times before then and many time after; as in •  Posting 126  • RE: Israel's Independence Day!.
> 
> Each of these examples triggered a long debate, as have the ones that came before and the one's that came after.
> 
> I'm not saying there is a case of the Pinocchio Syndrome; but, I'm chuckling from the sidelines.
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I read Tinmore's response and was left suffering an FPM episode (Face Palm Moment).


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
Click to expand...


First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?

That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
*tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
*tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.

The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?
> 
> That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
> Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
> *tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
> *tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,


Where did it say that?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I ask. WHAT territory does the Arab Palestinian have sovereignty???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?
> 
> That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
> Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
> *tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
> *tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did it say that?
Click to expand...


In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:

*San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*

*It was agreed –*

*(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

*(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The international community considers the *establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal* under international law
> 
> Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a *violation of international law*. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has *declared the settlements illegal*[15] as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice[16] and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
> 
> The majority of legal scholars hold the *settlements to violate international law*, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.[2]
> 
> *International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia*
> 
> Personally I believe these illegal settlements should be bombed out of existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?
> 
> That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
> Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
> *tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
> *tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:
> 
> *San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*
> 
> *It was agreed –*
> 
> *(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
> 
> *(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;


Indeed.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?
> 
> That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
> Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
> *tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
> *tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:
> 
> *San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*
> 
> *It was agreed –*
> 
> *(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
> 
> *(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...

It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter)  which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.

Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?
> 
> That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
> Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
> *tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
> *tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:
> 
> *San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*
> 
> *It was agreed –*
> 
> *(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
> 
> *(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter)  which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.
> 
> Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.
Click to expand...

All of those attacks happened after the Zionist invasion.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?
> 
> That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
> Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
> *tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
> *tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:
> 
> *San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*
> 
> *It was agreed –*
> 
> *(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
> 
> *(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter)  which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.
> 
> Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those attacks happened after the Zionist invasion.
Click to expand...


There was no Zionist invasion. Why do you use pointless slogans?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This clown thinks that San Remo was a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?
> 
> That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
> Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
> *tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
> *tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:
> 
> *San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*
> 
> *It was agreed –*
> 
> *(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
> 
> *(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...


Is this an argument against the fact that the sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish nation?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Israel, the never-ending Dreyfus Affair, Part I

Israel: The never-ending Dreyfus affair, part II


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter) which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.



Yes, I have found lots of evidence showing the Zionists throwing bombs into public buses, assassinating people and many other "terrorist" acts way before the term "terrorism" was a term used by the day to day press. Their actions practically invented these kinds of acts we now associate with "terrorism".


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> Is this an argument against the fact that the sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish nation?



There was never a "Jewish Nation" before 1947. The only reason the UN reluctantly agreed to the formation of a "Jewish State" was the hope that the Zionists living in Europe and the America's would move to this new found land and leave them alone. Sadly the UN did not consider the plight that would be placed on the indigenous Palestinian population. 

And Netanyahu's claim that this is a "Jewish Nation" proves that Netanyahu was lying when he proclaimed that Israel was the only "secular" state in the middle east. 

_A *secular state* is an idea pertaining to secularism, *whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion*.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion
_
But I must add, I am getting used to Leaders lying. Trump is the best con artist out there but Netanyahu's lying brings him in at a close second place.

Such is life


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> There was no Zionist invasion. Why do you use pointless slogans?



Hollie, if the truth hurts just keep on lying to yourself and maybe your guilt will just fade away?


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> There was never a "Jewish Nation" before 1947. The only reason the UN reluctantly agreed to the formation of a "Jewish State" was the hope that the Zionists living in Europe and the America's would move to this new found land and leave them alone. Sadly the UN did not consider the plight that would be placed on the indigenous Palestinian population.



The Jewish nation  is the indigenous population, it has existed in the land for 4 millenias:

*Jews* (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‬ ISO 259-3 _Yehudim_, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]) or *Jewish people* are an ethnoreligious group[10] and a nation[11][12][13] originating from the Israelites,[14][15][16] or Hebrews,[17][18] of the Ancient Near East. Jewish ethnicity, nationhood, and religion are strongly interrelated,[19] as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish people, while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.

Jews - Wikipedia

Intuition tells me Your argument is more on the theological side rather than state sovereignty in modern terms.    However the fact remains: the status of the Jewish nation and its' natural historical connection to the land was recognized when the sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish Nation by an act of international law (see post #2717)


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> And Netanyahu's claim that this is a "Jewish Nation" proves that Netanyahu was lying when he proclaimed that Israel was the only "secular" state in the middle east.
> 
> _A *secular state* is an idea pertaining to secularism, *whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion*.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion
> _
> But I must add, I am getting used to Leaders lying. Trump is the best con artist out there but Netanyahu's lying brings him in at a close second place.
> 
> Such is life



I remember Netanyahu stating that Israel is the only real democracy in the middle east, not that Israel is the most secular state.

Israel is definitely not a secular state, I would go as far and say that nothing about Israel can really be secular because of the main theme of this nation history. C. G. Jung would view it in terms of main Archetype of the Collective Unconscious, and its' influence on communication between nations.

Said that, I don't see how Israel doesn't fit all those conditions in Your quote. If a nations' philosophy and religious law allows for the nation to choose a secular conduct and govt, then there's no contradiction. 
I would also add that terms like "secularism", "religion" are not fit to measure eastern traditions. What could be viewed by a westerner as secularism can be viewed as pure religious ritual in the eyes of eastern traditions. What may be viewed as religion by eastern traditions, may have become an integral part of western philosophy, yet is called secularism in the west.


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no Zionist invasion. Why do you use pointless slogans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, if the truth hurts just keep on lying to yourself and maybe your guilt will just fade away?
Click to expand...


I have no sense of guilt about challenging those who repeat silly slogans. I also have no doubt you will sidestep and evade when tasked with supporting your “twoof” about some alleged _Zionist Invasion_™️ you and others like to rattle on about.


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> Intuition tells me Your argument is more on the theological side rather than state sovereignty in modern terms.



Call it what you may but Israel was a person not a place and there was never a land call "Israel" until 1948 ad


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> Israel is definitely not a secular state, I would go as far and say that nothing about Israel can really be secular because of the main theme of this nation history.



You are speaking with a forked tongue. 
not a secular state is the opposite of Israel can really be secular because

I believe this is called double speak; a con artists tool of choice

in my opinion


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> _Jewish nation and its' natural historical connection to the land was recognized when the sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish Nation by an act of international law_



At least you recognized that the true name of the land was and will soon return to "Palestine"


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intuition tells me Your argument is more on the theological side rather than state sovereignty in modern terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it what you may but Israel was a person not a place and there was never a land call "Israel" until 1948 ad
Click to expand...


Um. Not true. But also so what?  

Are new nations not permitted to come into being?  That's somewhat problematic for many nations, including "Palestine".


----------



## watchingfromafar

Shusha said:


> Are new nations not permitted to come into being?



Of course they are and they are also permitted to fade into history and never be remembered again


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> Of course they are and they are also permitted to fade into history and never be remembered again



And you find it ethical to suggest that a peoples who has achieved self-determination and sovereignty on their historical homeland should have it removed from them against their will, and indeed, erased not only from existence, but from memory?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate 
※→  Shusha, _et al,_

Well, that is a very good question.



Shusha said:


> And you find it ethical to suggest that a peoples who has achieved self-determination and sovereignty on their historical homeland should have it removed from them against their will, and indeed, erased not only from existence, but from memory?


*(COMMENT)*

I don't believe that anyone has a truly good answer to this. 

Just My Thought,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

Members of the Maccabi delegation of the Palestine/Eretz Australian Touring Team take the time to pose for photographers, 10 July 1939; back row (no.65): G.Arazi (Manager), S.Ginzburg, Zvi Fooks, A.Schneiderwiese, Peri Neufeld, S.Viner, Gaul Machlis, Egon Polak (Coach/Treasurer), 2nd row: A.Alembik, Avraham Reznik (captain), Menahem Mirimovitch, L.Werner, J.Greenberg, J.Lieberman, front row:


Own Goal! Spectacular Anti-Israel Propaganda Fail



The Haters Still Deserve a World Cup for Stupidity


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



A collection of random clips assembled into a propaganda video intended for the gullible. 

Congratulations. You're among the gullible.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Charles de Gaulle and David Ben Gurion’s Defense of Israel


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  Sixties Fan, et al,

Yet again, you make a superior contribution to the discussion, that goes very appreciated.

There was a very striking line that struck a cord with me: 

“moral duty” → to explain the “true intentions and practical course”​


Sixties Fan said:


> Charles de Gaulle and David Ben Gurion’s Defense of Israel


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the letter was a very good catalyst for thought and reflection.   And, I have written about the "Sultan Abdul Aziz amd how he allocated the "Alliance Israelite Universelle" 2600 dunams of land east of Jaffa for the establishment of a school of agriculture (1870).  I have written about that with little or no notice.  One member of the group equated the school as part of the European invasion of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intuition tells me Your argument is more on the theological side rather than state sovereignty in modern terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call it what you may but Israel was a person not a place and there was never a land call "Israel" until 1948 ad
Click to expand...


I want t call it the Land of Israel, for me it's my grand grand father's land, and has been so for millenias.


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Jewish nation and its' natural historical connection to the land was recognized when the sovereignty over all of Palestine was vested with the Jewish Nation by an act of international law_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you recognized that the true name of the land was and will soon return to "Palestine"
Click to expand...


The true name of the land is Israel, if Arabs want to pose as the Philistines they'll receive historic justice, both as Philistines and as Arabian invaders.


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is definitely not a secular state, I would go as far and say that nothing about Israel can really be secular because of the main theme of this nation history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are speaking with a forked tongue.
> not a secular state is the opposite of Israel can really be secular because
> 
> I believe this is called double speak; a con artists tool of choice
> 
> in my opinion
Click to expand...


Patently insane.


----------



## rylah

Pre Mandate:










Israel:


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> I want t call it the Land of Israel, for me it's my grand grand father's land, and has been so for millenias.



_Is the land of “Israel” their true ancient homeland?_

_*Promised Land*
“Moses went up Mount Nebo to the top of Pisgah, looked over the *promised land of Israel* spread out before him, and died, at the age of one hundred and twenty, according to Talmudic legend on 7 Adar, his 120th birthday exactly. _

_Moab is the historical name for a mountainous strip of land in modern-day _*Jordan *_running along the eastern shore of the _*Dead Sea. *_In ancient times, it was home to the kingdom of the Moabites, a people often in conflict with their Israelite neighbors to the west._

_The Moabites were a historical people, whose existence is attested to by numerous archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over an unnamed son of King_ _Omri of Israel. Their capital was _*Dibon, *_located next to the modern Jordanian town of _*Dhiban.*_”
Moab - New World Encyclopedia_

*From there they moved to Egypt*

(Gen 42:25 KJV)  Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man's money into his sack, and to give them provision for the way:

(Gen 45:20 KJV)  Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.

(Gen 45:21 KJV)  *And the children of Israel did so: and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way.*

(Gen 47:1 KJV)  *Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.*

(Gen 47:3 KJV)  And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh,* Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.*

Based on the above the “*Promised Land*” is not the land the Jews are occupying today. In biblical verse terms the Jews were nomads who were wonderers living off of the land grazing their sheep on the open plains.

Then the question that needs to be asked---

Why does the Israeli’s call the land they live on today their ancestral land?


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> Patently insane.



I agree but factually true


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want t call it the Land of Israel, for me it's my grand grand father's land, and has been so for millenias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Is the land of “Israel” their true ancient homeland?_
> 
> _*Promised Land*
> “Moses went up Mount Nebo to the top of Pisgah, looked over the *promised land of Israel* spread out before him, and died, at the age of one hundred and twenty, according to Talmudic legend on 7 Adar, his 120th birthday exactly. _
> 
> _Moab is the historical name for a mountainous strip of land in modern-day _*Jordan *_running along the eastern shore of the _*Dead Sea. *_In ancient times, it was home to the kingdom of the Moabites, a people often in conflict with their Israelite neighbors to the west._
> 
> _The Moabites were a historical people, whose existence is attested to by numerous archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over an unnamed son of King_ _Omri of Israel. Their capital was _*Dibon, *_located next to the modern Jordanian town of _*Dhiban.*_”
> Moab - New World Encyclopedia_
> 
> *From there they moved to Egypt*
> 
> (Gen 42:25 KJV)  Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man's money into his sack, and to give them provision for the way:
> 
> (Gen 45:20 KJV)  Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.
> 
> (Gen 45:21 KJV)  *And the children of Israel did so: and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way.*
> 
> (Gen 47:1 KJV)  *Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.*
> 
> (Gen 47:3 KJV)  And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh,* Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.*
> 
> Based on the above the “*Promised Land*” is not the land the Jews are occupying today. In biblical verse terms the Jews were nomads who were wonderers living off of the land grazing their sheep on the open plains.
> 
> Then the question that needs to be asked---
> 
> Why does the Israeli’s call the land they live on today their ancestral land?
Click to expand...

You seem to have clearly missed all the history post the Exodus from Egypt where the Nation of Israel was created ON what became known as the Land of Israel for about 3000 years from King David on.

At some point the Children of Israel stopped being nomadic and settled on the land promised to Abraham.

At no time the children of Israel regarded Egypt as their homeland, ancestral or otherwise.  They went there as a need because of the drought and other reasons, then became enslaved by the Egyptian Pharaoh .

The question which you should be asking yourself is:

Why do you take away the ancestral homeland of the Jews from them.  What is the purpose of delegitimizing their ancestry and where they had actually come from?

No other people is put through this amazing charade of "Oh, they do not really come from there, do they?  "

There is cultural, historical, anthropological, and archeological evidence of the Jewish ancestral existence on the land.

Thank you.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> You seem to have clearly missed all the history post the Exodus from Egypt



No, I did not. At that time Joseph was the Ruler over Egypt second only to the Pharaoh and “all” the Jews had moved to Egypt and were prospering and multiplying. All was fine until Moses does the following-----

*Moses Kills an Egyptian*

11And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

12And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, *he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. *

13And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?

14And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.

15Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

Exodus 2 KJV

Moses and all his followers flee Egypt marking the time of the great Exodus.

In my view


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> _Is the land of “Israel” their true ancient homeland?_


_
_
Why is it that no one asks this question of Japan or Korea or Scotland? Israel is just as obviously the territory where the Jewish people's culture, religion, language originated and developed as is those other peoples in their territory. 

The very asking of the question reveals the double standard.


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have clearly missed all the history post the Exodus from Egypt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not. At that time Joseph was the Ruler over Egypt second only to the Pharaoh and “all” the Jews had moved to Egypt and were prospering and multiplying. All was fine until Moses does the following-----
> 
> *Moses Kills an Egyptian*
> 
> 11And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
> 
> 12And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, *he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. *
> 
> 13And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?
> 
> 14And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known.
> 
> 15Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.
> 
> Exodus 2 KJV
> 
> Moses and all his followers flee Egypt marking the time of the great Exodus.
> 
> In my view
Click to expand...

I see.  In your world, or at least the book you read, or the preacher you heard this from -  Joseph and Moses lived at the same time, and at the time Moses was born, which was in the same century and the same decade  - the Children of Israel  had not already been put into servitude as slaves and kept from leaving Egypt.

Thank you again.


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan, rylah

Don't you just love it when Christians inform Jews what Jewish holy texts REALLY say?!


----------



## watchingfromafar

One thing I have learned is that you bury your great leaders in their own land to protect the graves from being molested

Genesis 25:9 _His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, _

Genesis 47:30 _but when I rest with my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me [ Israel ] where they are buried."  "I will do as you say," he said. ;_

Genesis 50:14_ For his sons carried him [ Israel ] into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre._

Genesis 25:9 _His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, _

Genesis 47:30 _but when I rest with my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me [ Israel ] where they are buried."  "I will do as you say," he said. _;

Genesis 49:31_ *There Abraham and his wife Sarah were buried, there Isaac and his wife Rebekah were buried, and there I buried Leah.*_

Genesis 50:10  _And they came to the threshingfloor of Atad, *which is beyond Jordan*, and there they mourned with a great and very sore lamentation:_

Genesis 50:14 _For his sons carried him [ Israel ] into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre._

Genesis 50:14 _After burying his father, Joseph returned to Egypt, together with his brothers and all the others who had gone with him to bury his father._

You bury your great leaders in your own homeland

Which Is Not the land falsely called “Israel” today

The truth will set you free


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> One thing I have learned is that you bury your great leaders in their own land to protect the graves from being molested
> 
> Genesis 25:9 _His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, _
> 
> Genesis 47:30 _but when I rest with my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me [ Israel ] where they are buried."  "I will do as you say," he said. ;_
> 
> Genesis 50:14_ For his sons carried him [ Israel ] into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre._
> 
> Genesis 25:9 _His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, _
> 
> Genesis 47:30 _but when I rest with my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me [ Israel ] where they are buried."  "I will do as you say," he said. _;
> 
> Genesis 49:31_ *There Abraham and his wife Sarah were buried, there Isaac and his wife Rebekah were buried, and there I buried Leah.*_
> 
> Genesis 50:10  _And they came to the threshingfloor of Atad, *which is beyond Jordan*, and there they mourned with a great and very sore lamentation:_
> 
> Genesis 50:14 _For his sons carried him [ Israel ] into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre._
> 
> Genesis 50:14 _After burying his father, Joseph returned to Egypt, together with his brothers and all the others who had gone with him to bury his father._
> 
> You bury your great leaders in your own homeland
> 
> Which Is Not the land falsely called “Israel” today
> 
> The truth will set you free


Just another bit of nonsense you have learned from your church leaders.

I would ask for your money back, or your time back and stop annoying the Jewish People with your leaders infantile ideas on how to steal the Jewish Land from the Jewish people.

The truth about the Jewish indigenous reality to the Land of Israel brings you pain, it is your pain to deal with.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> the Children of Israel had not already been put into servitude as slaves and kept from leaving Egypt.



Maybe this is where the Egyptians got the labor force needed to build the Pyramid’s and to show their gratitude Joseph was laid down in one of them.

If so I bet it was the smallest pyramid.

dis-clamor: I am just guessing


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Children of Israel had not already been put into servitude as slaves and kept from leaving Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this is where the Egyptians got the labor force needed to build the Pyramid’s and to show their gratitude Joseph was laid down in one of them.
> 
> If so I bet it was the smallest pyramid.
> 
> dis-clamor: I am just guessing
Click to expand...

Who cares what you are "guessing" or not "guessing"

It was never of your business and never will be.

Mind your own ancestors whereabouts for a change.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> stop annoying the Jewish People with your leaders infantile ideas on how to steal the Jewish Land from the Jewish people.



I am doing no such thing. There was a Jewish land, it just wasn't the land falsely claimed today as "Israel".


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> Mind your own ancestors whereabouts for a change.



I am jewish


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop annoying the Jewish People with your leaders infantile ideas on how to steal the Jewish Land from the Jewish people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing. There was a Jewish land, it just wasn't the land falsely claimed today as "Israel".
Click to expand...

You are a nut case who does not want the Jews to have their ancestral land.  Period.


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mind your own ancestors whereabouts for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am jewish
Click to expand...

NEVER under any sky, in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Phoenicia, in TranJordan, in Syria, in Iran,  in Europe or anywhere else in the world -     you would be Jewish.


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Children of Israel had not already been put into servitude as slaves and kept from leaving Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this is where the Egyptians got the labor force needed to build the Pyramid’s and to show their gratitude Joseph was laid down in one of them.
> 
> If so I bet it was the smallest pyramid.
> 
> dis-clamor: I am just guessing
Click to expand...


Sigh.  The labor force used for the building of the pyramids is well researched and understood.  We don't need your speculation.


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop annoying the Jewish People with your leaders infantile ideas on how to steal the Jewish Land from the Jewish people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing. There was a Jewish land, it just wasn't the land falsely claimed today as "Israel".
Click to expand...


Oh, please do enlighten us.  Where is this Jewish land you claim?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> You are a nut case who does not want the Jews to have their ancestral land. Period.



I tried to find that ancient map of "Israel"; and this is what I found---



 

No "Israel" could be found-----


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop annoying the Jewish People with your leaders infantile ideas on how to steal the Jewish Land from the Jewish people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing. There was a Jewish land, it just wasn't the land falsely claimed today as "Israel".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please do enlighten us.  Where is this Jewish land you claim?
Click to expand...

I kind of thought he was more than clear about it. 

EGYPT

We, the Jewish People, must leave the land of "Palestine" to the indigenous "Palestinians" and return.....apparently by force.....to Egypt.

So much understanding of what the Exodus was all about.

But someone like him/her.....has got to do it.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Then I looked once again and found this-----------





Still, no Israel could be found

*Please, help me find that ancient map of Israel !!!!!!!

Canaan is on that map.*


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop annoying the Jewish People with your leaders infantile ideas on how to steal the Jewish Land from the Jewish people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing. There was a Jewish land, it just wasn't the land falsely claimed today as "Israel".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please do enlighten us.  Where is this Jewish land you claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I kind of thought he was more than clear about it.
> 
> EGYPT
> 
> We, the Jewish People, must leave the land of "Palestine" to the indigenous "Palestinians" and return.....apparently by force.....to Egypt.
> 
> So much understanding of what the Exodus was all about.
> 
> But someone like him/her.....has got to do it.
Click to expand...



I honestly didn't think anyone could be that nutty.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> The truth about the Jewish indigenous reality to the Land of Israel brings you pain, it is your pain to deal with.



The pain you feel is the pain of knowing that "Israel" is not your true homeland even after showing you where your great leaders were burred and after producing ancient maps showing no place called Israel and still you live in denial. 

I truly feel sorry for you and will no longer challenge you on this subject.
May you and yours live long and prosper

bye.


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a nut case who does not want the Jews to have their ancestral land. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to find that ancient map of "Israel"; and this is what I found---
> View attachment 200742
> 
> No "Israel" could be found-----
Click to expand...

Well.....and I really have to call you this.....IDIOT.......
there were the children of Israel (Jacob)while they were in Egypt but there was no Nation of Israel until 3000 years ago with King David ON THE LAND OF ISRAEL.

You look for want you want to look for and you will find it.

Look.....no Israel in an ancient map of Africa and Asia Minor before the Nation of Israel came to be.

SURPRISE.....SURPRISE.....SURPRISE    !!!!!!!

I hate to tell you that, but there was no Greece until the Greeks created a Nation and there was no Rome until the Etruscans created their Nation, so on and so forth.

But you do not care about ALL of the Nations which had not become a Nation anywhere else in the world.

You care only to discredit, delegitimize, STEAL .....the Jewish homeland from the Jewish People.


Nice Christian, with nice hatred for Jews .....learned from pathetic nearly 2000 years of lies, slanders and libels told about the Jewish people, by pathetic people who follow a god who never was.

Smile fool


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth about the Jewish indigenous reality to the Land of Israel brings you pain, it is your pain to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pain you feel is the pain of knowing that "Israel" is not your true homeland even after showing you where your great leaders were burred and after producing ancient maps showing no place called Israel and still you live in denial.
> 
> I truly feel sorry for you and will no longer challenge you on this subject.
> May you and yours live long and prosper
> 
> bye.
Click to expand...

Where our great leaders are, or are not buried, has absolutely Nothing to do with where THEIR ancient homeland was, and continues to be.

You are not returning????

I doubt it.  Let us just see how many months it takes for you to come back with the same crap, with another name attached to yourself, because we have seen you around here before ,have we not?



Do not forget.

Israel is doing great.

It is the rest of the Middle East and Europe as well, now, who are suffering from their Jew hatred and endless need to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.

Am Israel Chai
(The People of Israel Live )


You like it or not.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> Israel is doing great.



Ok, you are right, I could not stay away-----------

King James Bible

Israel was a person, not a place

Genesis 32:28
_And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed._

According to a 2002 study by the Jewish Agency, "the number of Jews in the world is declining at an average of 50,000 per year."
Jewish population by country - Wikipedia

Now I am gone and to prove it I am logging off


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is doing great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you are right, I could not stay away-----------
> 
> King James Bible
> 
> Israel was a person, not a place
> 
> Genesis 32:28
> _And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed._
> 
> According to a 2002 study by the Jewish Agency, "the number of Jews in the world is declining at an average of 50,000 per year."
> Jewish population by country - Wikipedia
> 
> Now I am gone and to prove it I am logging off
Click to expand...

And.....AGAIN......you somehow managed to wipe out 3000 years of a Nation called Israel........Just because you feel like it.

You only have the all the Nations which dealt with Israel as witnesses that the Nation existed from 3000 years ago, on.....

And let us count the Phillistines, the Greeks, the Romans, the Assyrians, the Byzantine, on and on who can testify that such a Nation did exist in ancient Canaan.


By all means show only the map for ancient Egypt, but not the map for Ancient Canaan.

You are on an endless Christian BDS trip of delegitimizing Israel and the Jews.

No such luck  

Bye, bye....


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want t call it the Land of Israel, for me it's my grand grand father's land, and has been so for millenias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Is the land of “Israel” their true ancient homeland?_
> 
> _*Promised Land*
> “Moses went up Mount Nebo to the top of Pisgah, looked over the *promised land of Israel* spread out before him, and died, at the age of one hundred and twenty, according to Talmudic legend on 7 Adar, his 120th birthday exactly. _
> 
> _Moab is the historical name for a mountainous strip of land in modern-day _*Jordan *_running along the eastern shore of the _*Dead Sea. *_In ancient times, it was home to the kingdom of the Moabites, a people often in conflict with their Israelite neighbors to the west._
> 
> _The Moabites were a historical people, whose existence is attested to by numerous archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over an unnamed son of King_ _Omri of Israel. Their capital was _*Dibon, *_located next to the modern Jordanian town of _*Dhiban.*_”
> Moab - New World Encyclopedia_
> 
> *From there they moved to Egypt*
> 
> (Gen 42:25 KJV)  Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man's money into his sack, and to give them provision for the way:
> 
> (Gen 45:20 KJV)  Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.
> 
> (Gen 45:21 KJV)  *And the children of Israel did so: and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way.*
> 
> (Gen 47:1 KJV)  *Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.*
> 
> (Gen 47:3 KJV)  And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh,* Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.*
> 
> Based on the above the “*Promised Land*” is not the land the Jews are occupying today. In biblical verse terms the Jews were nomads who were wonderers living off of the land grazing their sheep on the open plains.
> 
> Then the question that needs to be asked---
> 
> Why does the Israeli’s call the land they live on today their ancestral land?
Click to expand...

I fail to see how these verses confirm Your claim.
The answer is simple - this is the land promised to our forefathers, this is our heritage.
That it's called the Land of Israel has become a wide world heritage by the time Israel was reestablished in 1948.

It's one of the most recorded connection between a people and land in world history.


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patently insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but factually true
Click to expand...


Yes the lack of reading comprehension is alarming at times.


----------



## rylah

Shusha said:


> Sixties Fan, rylah
> 
> Don't you just love it when Christians inform Jews what Jewish holy texts REALLY say?!



Nahmanides disputations is merely an exemplary case of the underlaying discourse between Jewish thought and Europe.


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan, rylah
> 
> Don't you just love it when Christians inform Jews what Jewish holy texts REALLY say?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nahmanides disputations is merely an exemplary case of the underlaying discourse between Jewish thought and Europe.
Click to expand...


Also, naturally I'd put re-establishment of Israel as one such exemplary culminations, 
It challenges European emancipation and what Arabs would call "middle eastern hospitality" on one hand and a bunch of theological challenges for both on the other hand.

At the end of the day, when we examine it in this perspective nothing about Israel can really be "secular" this way.


----------



## Sixties Fan

*The creation of Jordan*

To further understand Britain's anti-Israel bias it is important to consider how the British invented the Arab Kingdom of Jordan. British General James Lunt, a former commander in the Jordanian Arab Legion, related in his biography of Glubb Pasha “Britain had infuriated the Zionists by separating Transjordan from Palestine, which had in turn, delighted the Arabs of course.” (Glubb Pasha, James Lunt, Harvill Press 1984, page 62).

In 1916, before WWI ended, the British and the French signed the secret Sikes-Pikot agreement defining their proposed spheres of influence in the Middle East if they won the war. According to the agreement, France was allocated to Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, while the British would rule over Palestine and southern Iraq.

In 1920, following the provision of the Mandate to France and Britain at San Remo, the UK took control of British Mandate Palestine (Mandatory Palestine) in what is today Israel and Jordan, land captured from the Ottoman Empire.

*A secret deal*

The McMahon-Hussein correspondence (1915) reveals details of a secret deal between Sir Henry McMahon, High Commissioner of the UK in Egypt, and the Sharif of Mecca, Hussain Bin Ali, by which the British would give control of lands captured from the Ottoman Empire to the Arabs (Palestine was included within the boundaries that were proposed by Hussein) if the Arabs assisted the British in fighting the Turks during WWI.

In 1921 the UK created the Emirate of Transjordan (Jordan) in the land of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River and appointed Abdullah, son of the Shariff of Mecca, as King of Jordan. Britain also appointed Abdullah’s brother Faisal as King of Iraq. Jordan was officially under British Mandate Palestine and obtained independence in 1946.

In 1948 British General Glubb Pasha led the Jordanian Arab Legion to expel all the Jews from Hebron, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Not only they did ethnic cleansing but they destroyed dozens of ancient synagogues and thousands of Ancient Jewish Tombstones in the Sacred Ancient Jewish Cemetery of Mount of Olives to try to erase all evidence of Jewish History.

Britain was the only country to recognize Jordanian (not Palestinian) sovereignty over Jerusalem's Old City while it was under Jordanian occupation between 1948-67, this is not surprising, considering Jordan was a puppet Kingdom of the UK and Jordan's King Abdullah was honorary Air Commodore in Britain's Royal Air Force (1940).

(full article online)

A history lesson for Prince William: Judea, Samaria, Oslo et al


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The never ending Nakba.*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The never ending Nakba.*



It's quiet telling when a whole panel is based on a say so, hour and a half of anecdotes and big claims backed by hot air. Wonder why they allowed no opposing voices in the panel?

Israel and Spain are the only lands Arabs have lost, in favor of the indigenous nations.
Nakba seems to be a mere term referring to a breakaway from the greater Arab Empire.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  rylah, P F Tinmore, er al,

There is no such thing as a "Never Ending Nakba."  That is just crafty writing that has taken on a life of its own → and → expresses a connection between the "generational continuity" and bond to their cultural.  Both sides of the conflict experience this phenomenon.  It just so happens that - of the trio under discussion, the two Jewish components _(Max Blumenthal, Miko Peled, Steve Niva)_ in this three-part series, both Max Blumenthal _(the son of Sidney Blumenthal and former Aid to POTUS) _and Miko Peled _[son of a GEN Matt Peled (IDF) of the Six Day War era]_ wanted to develop an entirely independence and totally separate identities from their parents.  And both developed polar opposite political-military concepts of their parents on perceptions about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

All three supplement a significant portion of their income roving around and making pro-Palestinian presentations as relative to the poor way the Israelis treat the Arab Palestinians in the territories. 

A one-sided show for a one-sided audience is good business.



rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The never ending Nakba.*
> 
> 
> 
> It's quiet telling when a whole panel is based on a say so, hour and a half of anecdotes and big claims backed by hot air. Wonder why they allowed no opposing voices in the panel?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I agree with your implication.  It is clear that the sponsors _(including Phyllis Bennis, who in her own right is a well known Anti-Israeli Activist)_ of the discussion panel Presentation did not want to pollute the single anti-Israeli perspective with any pro-Israeli counter-points.  And, it is also clear, that the presentation was targeted specifically at a segment of Americans that might, in the future, bring an end to American military aid and support to the preservation of the Jewish National Home; as well as de-legitimise the State of Israel, in an effort to weaken it for the benefit of the Arab League.  They will present awkward code words like "Judaization" _(ethnic cleansing)_ at the forefront to set the tone for the presentation.  They will also bombard the audience with hearsay testimony → telling you about the free _(or discounted)_ tourist group travel packages to the Middle East (Israel); and how they are propaganda tools for the Israelis.  _I get three or four offers a month on how I became eligible for a Caribbean Cruise._

BTW:  Almost all foreign tours take the route and visit places of interest.  They do not typically take the tourist to the seedy parts of town.  Most tours present the best foot forward.  If that is propaganda, so be it.  I like to think it is good business practice. 

This is a very typical way pro-Palestinian presentations are formatted _(no opposition)_.  And it is a good strategy.  It sells books and makes the authors (all) just a little bit more well-known then they were before. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  rylah, P F Tinmore, er al,
> 
> There is no such thing as a "Never Ending Nakba."  That is just crafty writing that has taken on a life of its own → and → expresses a connection between the "generational continuity" and bond to their cultural.  Both sides of the conflict experience this phenomenon.  It just so happens that - of the trio under discussion, the two Jewish components _(Max Blumenthal, Miko Peled, Steve Niva)_ in this three-part series, both Max Blumenthal _(the son of Sidney Blumenthal and former Aid to POTUS) _and Miko Peled _[son of a GEN Matt Peled (IDF) of the Six Day War era]_ wanted to develop an entirely independence and totally separate identities from their parents.  And both developed polar opposite political-military concepts of their parents on perceptions about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
> 
> All three supplement a significant portion of their income roving around and making pro-Palestinian presentations as relative to the poor way the Israelis treat the Arab Palestinians in the territories.
> 
> A one-sided show for a one-sided audience is good business.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The never ending Nakba.*
> 
> 
> 
> It's quiet telling when a whole panel is based on a say so, hour and a half of anecdotes and big claims backed by hot air. Wonder why they allowed no opposing voices in the panel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I agree with your implication.  It is clear that the sponsors _(including Phyllis Bennis, who in her own right is a well known Anti-Israeli Activist)_ of the discussion panel Presentation did not want to pollute the single anti-Israeli perspective with any pro-Israeli counter-points.  And, it is also clear, that the presentation was targeted specifically at a segment of Americans that might, in the future, bring an end to American military aid and support to the preservation of the Jewish National Home; as well as de-legitimise the State of Israel, in an effort to weaken it for the benefit of the Arab League.  They will present awkward code words like "Judaization" _(ethnic cleansing)_ at the forefront to set the tone for the presentation.  They will also bombard the audience with hearsay testimony → telling you about the free _(or discounted)_ tourist group travel packages to the Middle East (Israel); and how they are propaganda tools for the Israelis.  _I get three or four offers a month on how I became eligible for a Caribbean Cruise._
> 
> BTW:  Almost all foreign tours take the route and visit places of interest.  They do not typically take the tourist to the seedy parts of town.  Most tours present the best foot forward.  If that is propaganda, so be it.  I like to think it is good business practice.
> 
> This is a very typical way pro-Palestinian presentations are formatted _(no opposition)_.  And it is a good strategy.  It sells books and makes the authors (all) just a little bit more well-known then they were before.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I think the Arab side has put all its' money on quantity rather than on quality.
Sometimes it looks like all it takes to answer those shallow allegations is a well read teenager. That's why the tactic is to swiftly overwhelm the conversation with a wide number of  allegations hoping to make an impression, while never actually going into proving any one of them.

This is less an intellectual discourse than a desperate self-promotion tactic wholly dependent prolonging the conflict for personal needs. Reminds me of all the Arab mayors and muftis who sold lands to Jews while in the media promising death to everyone else for doing so, just to raise the prices.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Middle East was of course first and foremost reshaped because the Ottoman Empire chose to ally itself with the side that lost the First World War and the former German and Ottoman territories and colonies subsequently came under the supervision of the League of Nations.

Dymond’s portrayal of the fact that the British government chose to terminate its administration of the mandate originally granted by the League of Nations is similarly unhelpful to anyone hoping to understand the history behind the royal visit.

“When Palestine slipped from the hands of an exhausted and broken post-war Britain in 1948, the Prince’s great-grandfather George VI was on the throne.” [emphasis added]

Dymond found it appropriate to mention just one episode of political violence in his account:

“When Prince William lays his head this week at his Jerusalem hotel, the King David, he will be at the site of one of the worst attacks on British forces during the Jews’ battle for independence. It was an attack condemned at the time as Jewish terrorism.”

However, he failed to provide readers with any meaningful information on the Arab rioting and revolt – or the ensuing British restrictions on Jewish immigration to Mandate Palestine before, during and after the Second World War.

“From the Balfour declaration to the White Paper, the promises and pledges that Britain has made to different parties at different times in Palestine are now part of the region’s collective memory.”

Significantly, Dymond refrained from clarifying to the domestic audiences reading his article on the BBC News website’s Middle East page that the British government failed to meet the primary remit with which it was entrusted under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine: the establishment of a Jewish national home:

(full article online)

BBC News website adopts selective history in royal visit article


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  rylah, P F Tinmore, er al,
> 
> There is no such thing as a "Never Ending Nakba."  That is just crafty writing that has taken on a life of its own → and → expresses a connection between the "generational continuity" and bond to their cultural.  Both sides of the conflict experience this phenomenon.  It just so happens that - of the trio under discussion, the two Jewish components _(Max Blumenthal, Miko Peled, Steve Niva)_ in this three-part series, both Max Blumenthal _(the son of Sidney Blumenthal and former Aid to POTUS) _and Miko Peled _[son of a GEN Matt Peled (IDF) of the Six Day War era]_ wanted to develop an entirely independence and totally separate identities from their parents.  And both developed polar opposite political-military concepts of their parents on perceptions about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
> 
> All three supplement a significant portion of their income roving around and making pro-Palestinian presentations as relative to the poor way the Israelis treat the Arab Palestinians in the territories.
> 
> A one-sided show for a one-sided audience is good business.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The never ending Nakba.*
> 
> 
> 
> It's quiet telling when a whole panel is based on a say so, hour and a half of anecdotes and big claims backed by hot air. Wonder why they allowed no opposing voices in the panel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I agree with your implication.  It is clear that the sponsors _(including Phyllis Bennis, who in her own right is a well known Anti-Israeli Activist)_ of the discussion panel Presentation did not want to pollute the single anti-Israeli perspective with any pro-Israeli counter-points.  And, it is also clear, that the presentation was targeted specifically at a segment of Americans that might, in the future, bring an end to American military aid and support to the preservation of the Jewish National Home; as well as de-legitimise the State of Israel, in an effort to weaken it for the benefit of the Arab League.  They will present awkward code words like "Judaization" _(ethnic cleansing)_ at the forefront to set the tone for the presentation.  They will also bombard the audience with hearsay testimony → telling you about the free _(or discounted)_ tourist group travel packages to the Middle East (Israel); and how they are propaganda tools for the Israelis.  _I get three or four offers a month on how I became eligible for a Caribbean Cruise._
> 
> BTW:  Almost all foreign tours take the route and visit places of interest.  They do not typically take the tourist to the seedy parts of town.  Most tours present the best foot forward.  If that is propaganda, so be it.  I like to think it is good business practice.
> 
> This is a very typical way pro-Palestinian presentations are formatted _(no opposition)_.  And it is a good strategy.  It sells books and makes the authors (all) just a little bit more well-known then they were before.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Now that you have slimed the source, is there anything in particular that you find to be inaccurate?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I said not one derogatory thing about the trio of _(source is not the right word)_ orators.  In fact, I gave several complements to these shadow boxers.   



P F Tinmore said:


> Now that you have slimed the source, is there anything in particular that you find to be inaccurate?


*(COMMENT)*

Their anti-government, anti-Israeli opinions are as free to be disseminated as any other opinion.  As Mr Blumenthall described the Judaization Galilee and The Negev how as the Settler/Soldiers _(what we call in America as the National Guard - Citizen Soldiers)_ which he describes a Zionist, very racist, very settler colonial mindset.   He opens with an anti-patriot description _(a technique as to what you call "slimed")_.  As an opening salvo - and no one to stand and counter the integrity of the "Settler/Soldiers" (_Citizen Soldiers)_ pulling double duty as both the productive farmers and the protectors for the system of Kibbutz, Mr Blumenthall had nothing to worry about in challenging his anti-Israel _(utilization and application of the Isreali Defense Force)_ patriotic call to develop the nation.  It is very probably why the State of Israel is considerably higher on the Human Development Index than any other Arab League Member, as well as ranked above all the Arab League nations in the 2018 List of Best Countries in the World.  (Copyright © 2017 U.S. News & World Report LP. All rights reserved.) 

Now I could go on and on, but that would serve no purpose since you wouldn't listen anyway, and that their presentation lased almost and hour and a half.  They all have their right to express their opinion and attempt to convince America that the decisions of the Allied Powers to establish a Jewish National Home; and the opposition _(Military and Political)_ presented by the Arab Palestinians on the losing side in both World Wars, is to no avail.  Even if the Arab Palestinians wanted to roll back the clock to June 1967 _(a half-century ago)_, there is no practical way to achieve an amicable settlement. 

And I'm not sure that the neighboring states would want to turn an irreverent culture of Islamic terrorist loose in the world.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I said not one derogatory thing about the trio of _(source is not the right word)_ orators.  In fact, I gave several complements to these shadow boxers.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you have slimed the source, is there anything in particular that you find to be inaccurate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Their anti-government, anti-Israeli opinions are as free to be disseminated as any other opinion.  As Mr Blumenthall described the Judaization Galilee and The Negev how as the Settler/Soldiers _(what we call in America as the National Guard - Citizen Soldiers)_ which he describes a Zionist, very racist, very settler colonial mindset.   He opens with an anti-patriot description _(a technique as to what you call "slimed")_.  As an opening salvo - and no one to stand and counter the integrity of the "Settler/Soldiers" (_Citizen Soldiers)_ pulling double duty as both the productive farmers and the protectors for the system of Kibbutz, Mr Blumenthall had nothing to worry about in challenging his anti-Israel _(utilization and application of the Isreali Defense Force)_ patriotic call to develop the nation.  It is very probably why the State of Israel is considerably higher on the Human Development Index than any other Arab League Member, as well as ranked above all the Arab League nations in the 2018 List of Best Countries in the World.  (Copyright © 2017 U.S. News & World Report LP. All rights reserved.)
> 
> Now I could go on and on, but that would serve no purpose since you wouldn't listen anyway, and that their presentation lased almost and hour and a half.  They all have their right to express their opinion and attempt to convince America that the decisions of the Allied Powers to establish a Jewish National Home; and the opposition _(Military and Political)_ presented by the Arab Palestinians on the losing side in both World Wars, is to no avail.  Even if the Arab Palestinians wanted to roll back the clock to June 1967 _(a half-century ago)_, there is no practical way to achieve an amicable settlement.
> 
> And I'm not sure that the neighboring states would want to turn an irreverent culture of Islamic terrorist loose in the world.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Nice rant.

Ducked my post though.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  rylah, P F Tinmore, er al,
> 
> There is no such thing as a "Never Ending Nakba."  That is just crafty writing that has taken on a life of its own → and → expresses a connection between the "generational continuity" and bond to their cultural.  Both sides of the conflict experience this phenomenon.  It just so happens that - of the trio under discussion, the two Jewish components _(Max Blumenthal, Miko Peled, Steve Niva)_ in this three-part series, both Max Blumenthal _(the son of Sidney Blumenthal and former Aid to POTUS) _and Miko Peled _[son of a GEN Matt Peled (IDF) of the Six Day War era]_ wanted to develop an entirely independence and totally separate identities from their parents.  And both developed polar opposite political-military concepts of their parents on perceptions about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
> 
> All three supplement a significant portion of their income roving around and making pro-Palestinian presentations as relative to the poor way the Israelis treat the Arab Palestinians in the territories.
> 
> A one-sided show for a one-sided audience is good business.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The never ending Nakba.*
> 
> 
> 
> It's quiet telling when a whole panel is based on a say so, hour and a half of anecdotes and big claims backed by hot air. Wonder why they allowed no opposing voices in the panel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I agree with your implication.  It is clear that the sponsors _(including Phyllis Bennis, who in her own right is a well known Anti-Israeli Activist)_ of the discussion panel Presentation did not want to pollute the single anti-Israeli perspective with any pro-Israeli counter-points.  And, it is also clear, that the presentation was targeted specifically at a segment of Americans that might, in the future, bring an end to American military aid and support to the preservation of the Jewish National Home; as well as de-legitimise the State of Israel, in an effort to weaken it for the benefit of the Arab League.  They will present awkward code words like "Judaization" _(ethnic cleansing)_ at the forefront to set the tone for the presentation.  They will also bombard the audience with hearsay testimony → telling you about the free _(or discounted)_ tourist group travel packages to the Middle East (Israel); and how they are propaganda tools for the Israelis.  _I get three or four offers a month on how I became eligible for a Caribbean Cruise._
> 
> BTW:  Almost all foreign tours take the route and visit places of interest.  They do not typically take the tourist to the seedy parts of town.  Most tours present the best foot forward.  If that is propaganda, so be it.  I like to think it is good business practice.
> 
> This is a very typical way pro-Palestinian presentations are formatted _(no opposition)_.  And it is a good strategy.  It sells books and makes the authors (all) just a little bit more well-known then they were before.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that you have slimed the source, is there anything in particular that you find to be inaccurate?
Click to expand...


They compare Zionism and Israel as the equivalence of the US, regarding indigenous rights when in reality Israel is the product of a liberation movement for the indigenous people.

Israel is  tiny Jewish reservation in the whole of Arab middle east. Everyone else is living Arab and Muslim rule. It's pretty clear who're the colonizers attempting to get all the land on the account of the indigenous nations.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I said not one derogatory thing about the trio of _(source is not the right word)_ orators.  In fact, I gave several complements to these shadow boxers.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you have slimed the source, is there anything in particular that you find to be inaccurate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Their anti-government, anti-Israeli opinions are as free to be disseminated as any other opinion.  As Mr Blumenthall described the Judaization Galilee and The Negev how as the Settler/Soldiers _(what we call in America as the National Guard - Citizen Soldiers)_ which he describes a Zionist, very racist, very settler colonial mindset.   He opens with an anti-patriot description _(a technique as to what you call "slimed")_.  As an opening salvo - and no one to stand and counter the integrity of the "Settler/Soldiers" (_Citizen Soldiers)_ pulling double duty as both the productive farmers and the protectors for the system of Kibbutz, Mr Blumenthall had nothing to worry about in challenging his anti-Israel _(utilization and application of the Isreali Defense Force)_ patriotic call to develop the nation.  It is very probably why the State of Israel is considerably higher on the Human Development Index than any other Arab League Member, as well as ranked above all the Arab League nations in the 2018 List of Best Countries in the World.  (Copyright © 2017 U.S. News & World Report LP. All rights reserved.)
> 
> Now I could go on and on, but that would serve no purpose since you wouldn't listen anyway, and that their presentation lased almost and hour and a half.  They all have their right to express their opinion and attempt to convince America that the decisions of the Allied Powers to establish a Jewish National Home; and the opposition _(Military and Political)_ presented by the Arab Palestinians on the losing side in both World Wars, is to no avail.  Even if the Arab Palestinians wanted to roll back the clock to June 1967 _(a half-century ago)_, there is no practical way to achieve an amicable settlement.
> 
> And I'm not sure that the neighboring states would want to turn an irreverent culture of Islamic terrorist loose in the world.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant.
> 
> Ducked my post though.
Click to expand...


No ducking.  You simply do not like the result of what it actually means for these very few Jews turning against Israel compared to what over 95%  know and are for.

You and others, keep holding on to the very few Jews who are anti Israel and its existence as if you hoped that the other 95% will eventually follow them and give you and the Muslims what you dream of since 1948.

The destruction of Israel and the giving of the 20% of their ancient land to the invading Muslims.

You do not like the answers, you say, you ducked, etc, etc.

We have been through this lesson before.

You do not want Israel to exist.  It is as simple as that.


----------



## Sixties Fan

First of all, what was targeted was the southern wing, not the entire hotel. The northern wing was the "civilian" section where tourists stayed and was not harmed.  In constantly writing "the King David Hotel", the reader receives the impression that the entire hotel was intended to be damaged.

Even when the distinction is made, as here:


_The entire southern wing of the hotel – all seven floors – was totally destroyed._

the accompanying photographs












obviously show that the main damage, while considerate, for sure, was to the front section of the wing and that the eastern part, to the rear, remained standing.

Moreover, only a careful reader would catch reading the story that the southern wing also housed the HQ of the British Army in the country, quite a legitimate military target.

But what is really diabolical in Ms. Broad's account, faithfully and uncritically copied by Myall, is here:

(full article online)

My Right Word: The King David Hotel Operation, Again


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> First of all, what was targeted was the southern wing, not the entire hotel. The northern wing was the "civilian" section where tourists stayed and was not harmed.  In constantly writing "the King David Hotel", the reader receives the impression that the entire hotel was intended to be damaged.
> 
> Even when the distinction is made, as here:
> 
> 
> _The entire southern wing of the hotel – all seven floors – was totally destroyed._
> 
> the accompanying photographs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obviously show that the main damage, while considerate, for sure, was to the front section of the wing and that the eastern part, to the rear, remained standing.
> 
> Moreover, only a careful reader would catch reading the story that the southern wing also housed the HQ of the British Army in the country, quite a legitimate military target.
> 
> But what is really diabolical in Ms. Broad's account, faithfully and uncritically copied by Myall, is here:
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> My Right Word: The King David Hotel Operation, Again


So it is OK for the Jews to bomb their occupiers but it is not OK for the Palestinians to throw rocks at theirs.

Double standard much.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what was targeted was the southern wing, not the entire hotel. The northern wing was the "civilian" section where tourists stayed and was not harmed.  In constantly writing "the King David Hotel", the reader receives the impression that the entire hotel was intended to be damaged.
> 
> Even when the distinction is made, as here:
> 
> 
> _The entire southern wing of the hotel – all seven floors – was totally destroyed._
> 
> the accompanying photographs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obviously show that the main damage, while considerate, for sure, was to the front section of the wing and that the eastern part, to the rear, remained standing.
> 
> Moreover, only a careful reader would catch reading the story that the southern wing also housed the HQ of the British Army in the country, quite a legitimate military target.
> 
> But what is really diabolical in Ms. Broad's account, faithfully and uncritically copied by Myall, is here:
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> My Right Word: The King David Hotel Operation, Again
> 
> 
> 
> So it is OK for the Jews to bomb their occupiers but it is not OK for the Palestinians to throw rocks at theirs.
> 
> Double standard much.
Click to expand...


If anything this post expresses much of Your own double standard and deception.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie




----------



## watchingfromafar

*There are two (2) points of view that must be considered in their intent and purpose—

View #1 is a biblical view:*

(Deu 7:6 KJV) _For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy *God hath chosen thee *to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth._

(Deu 7:7 KJV)_ The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; *for ye were the fewest of all people*:_

The Lord chose them for a purpose and that purpose was to exemplify His teaching and from this example others would understand by this example and follow along this path bringing peace and tranquility to all.

(Deu 1:16 KJV)  _And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him._

(Deu 10:19 KJV)  *Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*

 (Deu 24:19 KJV)  _When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands._

(Deu 24:20 KJV)  _When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._

(Deu 24:21 KJV)  _When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._

*****Then time passed on and the Lord returned to see what His children have done to further His cause----*

(Ezek 36:17 KJV)  _Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their ..own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman._

(Ezek 36:18 KJV) _Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it._

(Ezek 36:22 KJV) _Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went._

(Ezek 36:24 KJV) _For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land._

(Ezek 36:31 KJV) _Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations._

(Ezek 36:32 KJV) _Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel._

Clearly the Jews of that day did not follow His instructions and the Lord was appalled at what He saw. This time period may mark the time they were scattered because of the discretions he was witness to.

*View #2 is an historical view: *

July 22, 1946. *Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons. *

October 1, 1946. _The *British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions*, for which Irgun claimed responsibility._

_September 3, 1947. *A postal bomb* addressed to the British War Office *exploded in the post office sorting room in London*, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. _

December ll, 1947. _Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa*; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._

December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. *Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others*_, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses.  *Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others*._

December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.* _

June 1947. *Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.*

December ll, 1947. *Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded*_ when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa* ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._

December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*_

January 5, 1948. _The Arab-owned Semiramis *Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons*._

January 7, 1948. *Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb*_ at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the *murder of a British officer* near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country._

May 3, 1948. *A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer*_, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran._

May11, 1948. *A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker*_, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife._

And then as time passed on there was more for the Lord to see-------

*12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD* in front of your eyes
Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes

*IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl* who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
*http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html*

* UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach* and critically wounded *by Israel Defense Forces gunfire*. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit  a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a *10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.*
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 7 September 2004 At 07:45 *10-year old Raghda Adnan Al-Assar was struck in the head* by Israeli fire while sitting at her desk in UNRWA's Elementary

Girl's School On June 1 this year *two ten-year old children* in UNRWA's
Al-Umariye Elementary Boys' School  in Rafah were hit by a bullet from a Israeli tank
In March 2003
Photos of a *12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers *and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/

 T*hree-year-old *Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head while buying candy with her friends.
5 June 2004
The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails

*An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead* by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
Lend me your swords

*Boy of 17, shot by Israeli soldiers, left bleeding overnight to die*
September 8, 2003
The bullet ridden corpse of Mohammad Abdullah Abu al-Husni, was found yesterday morning near the town of Jabaliya, where he lived in Gaza.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/left_to_die.htm

Haneen, who was *eight years old, had been shot twice in the head* by an Israeli soldier
 She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying,
'Mother, mother'. *Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other*.
She was still in my arms and she died."
'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'

*This boy* was in his own house and an IDF soldier barges into the house and *shoots him dead Mohammed a 7-year-old boy  fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.*
Tuesday December 23, 2003
Israel Army action breeds fresh hatred

* Israel Baby is born then dies*
September 11, 2003
Birth and death at the checkpoint
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338937.html

* Three shot in the back by Israeli snipers, one a 15-year-old boy*
January, 2004
* 15 year old boy who was shot while standing in front of his house.* by a sniper.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm

*Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head *while buying candy with her friends.
5 June 2004
The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails

15 year old boy &  Amer Kathym & Rouhi Hazem Shouman all *shot in the back by a sniper.*
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm

An *eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops* in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
Lend me your swords

*IDF shoots 13-year-old girl in the back with 20 bullets*  and then the IDF commander goes over to the girl and shoots her again to make sure she was dead
 Tue., October 05, 2004
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485274.html

*“I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."*
http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/children.html
http://tinyurl.com/8rmn2g3


*Do you believe the Lord was happy to see what His children have done?*​


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> *There are two (2) points of view that must be considered in their intent and purpose—
> 
> View #1 is a biblical view:*
> 
> (Deu 7:6 KJV) _For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy *God hath chosen thee *to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth._
> 
> (Deu 7:7 KJV)_ The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; *for ye were the fewest of all people*:_
> 
> The Lord chose them for a purpose and that purpose was to exemplify His teaching and from this example others would understand by this example and follow along this path bringing peace and tranquility to all.
> 
> (Deu 1:16 KJV)  _And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him._
> 
> (Deu 10:19 KJV)  *Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*
> 
> (Deu 24:19 KJV)  _When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands._
> 
> (Deu 24:20 KJV)  _When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> (Deu 24:21 KJV)  _When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> *****Then time passed on and the Lord returned to see what His children have done to further His cause----*
> 
> (Ezek 36:17 KJV)  _Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their ..own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman._
> 
> (Ezek 36:18 KJV) _Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it._
> 
> (Ezek 36:22 KJV) _Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went._
> 
> (Ezek 36:24 KJV) _For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land._
> 
> (Ezek 36:31 KJV) _Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations._
> 
> (Ezek 36:32 KJV) _Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel._
> 
> Clearly the Jews of that day did not follow His instructions and the Lord was appalled at what He saw. This time period may mark the time they were scattered because of the discretions he was witness to.
> 
> *View #2 is an historical view: *
> 
> July 22, 1946. *Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons. *
> 
> October 1, 1946. _The *British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions*, for which Irgun claimed responsibility._
> 
> _September 3, 1947. *A postal bomb* addressed to the British War Office *exploded in the post office sorting room in London*, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. _
> 
> December ll, 1947. _Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa*; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. *Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others*_, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses.  *Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others*._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.* _
> 
> June 1947. *Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.*
> 
> December ll, 1947. *Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded*_ when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa* ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*_
> 
> January 5, 1948. _The Arab-owned Semiramis *Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons*._
> 
> January 7, 1948. *Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb*_ at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the *murder of a British officer* near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country._
> 
> May 3, 1948. *A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer*_, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran._
> 
> May11, 1948. *A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker*_, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife._
> 
> And then as time passed on there was more for the Lord to see-------
> 
> *12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD* in front of your eyes
> Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
> A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes
> 
> *IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl* who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
> *http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html*
> 
> * UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
> An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach* and critically wounded *by Israel Defense Forces gunfire*. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit  a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a *10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.*
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html
> 
> United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 7 September 2004 At 07:45 *10-year old Raghda Adnan Al-Assar was struck in the head* by Israeli fire while sitting at her desk in UNRWA's Elementary
> 
> Girl's School On June 1 this year *two ten-year old children* in UNRWA's
> Al-Umariye Elementary Boys' School  in Rafah were hit by a bullet from a Israeli tank
> In March 2003
> Photos of a *12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers *and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
> http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/
> 
> T*hree-year-old *Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> *An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead* by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *Boy of 17, shot by Israeli soldiers, left bleeding overnight to die*
> September 8, 2003
> The bullet ridden corpse of Mohammad Abdullah Abu al-Husni, was found yesterday morning near the town of Jabaliya, where he lived in Gaza.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/left_to_die.htm
> 
> Haneen, who was *eight years old, had been shot twice in the head* by an Israeli soldier
> She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying,
> 'Mother, mother'. *Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other*.
> She was still in my arms and she died."
> 'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'
> 
> *This boy* was in his own house and an IDF soldier barges into the house and *shoots him dead Mohammed a 7-year-old boy  fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.*
> Tuesday December 23, 2003
> Israel Army action breeds fresh hatred
> 
> * Israel Baby is born then dies*
> September 11, 2003
> Birth and death at the checkpoint
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338937.html
> 
> * Three shot in the back by Israeli snipers, one a 15-year-old boy*
> January, 2004
> * 15 year old boy who was shot while standing in front of his house.* by a sniper.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> *Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head *while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> 15 year old boy &  Amer Kathym & Rouhi Hazem Shouman all *shot in the back by a sniper.*
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> An *eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops* in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *IDF shoots 13-year-old girl in the back with 20 bullets*  and then the IDF commander goes over to the girl and shoots her again to make sure she was dead
> Tue., October 05, 2004
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485274.html
> 
> *“I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."*
> http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/children.html
> http://tinyurl.com/8rmn2g3
> 
> 
> *Do you believe the Lord was happy to see what His children have done?*​



YOUR god, is not our god.

And when the British decided to take over the what was left of of the Mandate for Palestine, homeland of the Jews and for the Jews, the Jews decided that finally.....they needed to make the British leave the Jewish homeland.

That is what happens when those who have too much power (The British) show how they do not give a darn about Jewish life and keep giving in to the violence which came from the Arab Muslims against the indigenous Jewish people.

Your use of the word Zionists is useless.  Those are the indigenous people of the land returning to it, and being forced to fight not only the Arab Jihadists who would not allow a Jewish sovereign state on the Jewish Homeland , but the British who had given themselves the "right" to do with the land whatever they wanted, and keep it if it suited them to do so.

The rest of your post is nothing but garbage, of Jews being forced to fight the Arabs and having to defend themselves against those Muslims, or having to go on the offensive.

It is no different than any other war.

Except that in this war, the losers - aka, the Arab invaders and the British invaders, seem to continue to think that the indigenous Jews should NEVER, EVER have any rights to their ancient homeland.

Christianity and Islam are the two worst ideologies ever thought of on this planet.

Blame, and blame and blame ONLY one people and go after them until all of them are gone. That is exactly what cowards do.



Am Israel Chai.
The People of Israel Live.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Am Israel Chai.
The People of Israel Live;

 hear my words-----

You are living in a world of denial.

I once watched a man from a local care center walking down the street in front of my office and this man, in his early 30’s was clutching a Teddy Bear with a smile on his face. He had created a world that he could live in.

Your Teddy Bear is the belief that there was an ancient Jewish homeland and that place is the land now falsely claimed by the Israeli’s.

To you it’s irrelevant that an ancient “Israel” cannot be found because it never existed

To you it’s irrelevant that the Israeli’s have broken every covenant the Lord asked them to do

To you it’s irrelevant that the Israeli’s were the “first” to throw bombs that murdered countless

To you it’s irrelevant that the IDF used snipers targeting children shooting them in the head

You have been blinded by the hate that ingulfs your mind.

I feel sorry for you and pray that these delusions of yours is transformed into love and caring putting warmth into your heart instead of that cold, hard ice


----------



## admonit

watchingfromafar said:


> *Do you believe the Lord was happy to see what His children have done?*​


The answer certainly should be "yes":
1. The Jewish people managed to keep their faith in their God in spite of persecutions by other religions.
2. The Jewish people managed to survive as a nation.
3. The Jewish people today again speak the language of Torah.
4. The Jewish people are fulfilling the Torah's prophecy about gathering of Israel.
5. The Jewish people, defending their promised land, defeated their numerous and power enemies.


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Am Israel Chai.
> The People of Israel Live;
> 
> hear my words-----
> 
> You are living in a world of denial.
> 
> I once watched a man from a local care center walking down the street in front of my office and this man, in his early 30’s was clutching a Teddy Bear with a smile on his face. He had created a world that he could live in.
> 
> Your Teddy Bear is the belief that there was an ancient Jewish homeland and that place is the land now falsely claimed by the Israeli’s.
> 
> To you it’s irrelevant that an ancient “Israel” cannot be found because it never existed
> 
> To you it’s irrelevant that the Israeli’s have broken every covenant the Lord asked them to do
> 
> To you it’s irrelevant that the Israeli’s were the “first” to throw bombs that murdered countless
> 
> To you it’s irrelevant that the IDF used snipers targeting children shooting them in the head
> 
> You have been blinded by the hate that ingulfs your mind.
> 
> I feel sorry for you and pray that these delusions of yours is transformed into love and caring putting warmth into your heart instead of that cold, hard ice


Oh, my....the "god" of Christians, Muslims and Atheist has finally spoken.

"HIS" are the words anyone should follow.

Tell us more, "Oh, god !!!! "

And you are SOOOOOOOO  off topic.......


Thank you "god" for gracing us with your presence and infinite  wisdom.


AMEN


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan
Platinum Member states-------

_*Zionism *: a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel._

_*Zionism*: an international movement to oppose the forces arrayed against the Jewish state, something both meaningful and useful – even essential. It did not end when the state was declared; thanks to our enemies, Zionism is a continuing struggle._

_Hasbara
"The natural response against anti-Zionism which derives from the hatred of Jews and the desire to destroy Israel as a sovereign Jewish nation"_

_Denialism is a region of the mind most preferred by those who reject the Jewish Nation/People's right to sovereignty on their own Ancient Land._
.......................................................

 In my view Zionism is a cult that sees themselves as special and above all others. They represent the pure definition of racism. The only other cultist society that I can think of was the Germans during WW2.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Hitler was a Jew too.
*Israel was a person not a place and the Lord did not look upon him kindly *

(Genesis 32:28 KJV) _And he said, *Thy name shall be called no more Iacob, but Israel*: for as a prince hast thou power with God, and with men, and hast preuailed._

(Ezek 36:17 KJV) _*Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their ..own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman.*_

(Ezek 36:18 KJV) _Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it._

(Ezek 36:32 KJV)_ Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: *be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.*_

Still all is not lost, they can repent, ask the Lord for forgiveness and forgiveness would be given.

But they have to ask for it; before they are forgiven.
BTW Israel is not an ancient land now or ever.


In my view of things
no animosity intended or implied


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> *There are two (2) points of view that must be considered in their intent and purpose—
> 
> View #1 is a biblical view:*
> 
> (Deu 7:6 KJV) _For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy *God hath chosen thee *to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth._
> 
> (Deu 7:7 KJV)_ The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; *for ye were the fewest of all people*:_
> 
> The Lord chose them for a purpose and that purpose was to exemplify His teaching and from this example others would understand by this example and follow along this path bringing peace and tranquility to all.
> 
> (Deu 1:16 KJV)  _And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him._
> 
> (Deu 10:19 KJV)  *Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*
> 
> (Deu 24:19 KJV)  _When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands._
> 
> (Deu 24:20 KJV)  _When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> (Deu 24:21 KJV)  _When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> *****Then time passed on and the Lord returned to see what His children have done to further His cause----*
> 
> (Ezek 36:17 KJV)  _Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their ..own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman._
> 
> (Ezek 36:18 KJV) _Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it._
> 
> (Ezek 36:22 KJV) _Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went._
> 
> (Ezek 36:24 KJV) _For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land._
> 
> (Ezek 36:31 KJV) _Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations._
> 
> (Ezek 36:32 KJV) _Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel._
> 
> Clearly the Jews of that day did not follow His instructions and the Lord was appalled at what He saw. This time period may mark the time they were scattered because of the discretions he was witness to.
> 
> *View #2 is an historical view: *
> 
> July 22, 1946. *Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons. *
> 
> October 1, 1946. _The *British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions*, for which Irgun claimed responsibility._
> 
> _September 3, 1947. *A postal bomb* addressed to the British War Office *exploded in the post office sorting room in London*, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. _
> 
> December ll, 1947. _Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa*; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. *Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others*_, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses.  *Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others*._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.* _
> 
> June 1947. *Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.*
> 
> December ll, 1947. *Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded*_ when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa* ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*_
> 
> January 5, 1948. _The Arab-owned Semiramis *Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons*._
> 
> January 7, 1948. *Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb*_ at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the *murder of a British officer* near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country._
> 
> May 3, 1948. *A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer*_, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran._
> 
> May11, 1948. *A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker*_, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife._
> 
> And then as time passed on there was more for the Lord to see-------
> 
> *12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD* in front of your eyes
> Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
> A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes
> 
> *IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl* who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
> *http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html*
> 
> * UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
> An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach* and critically wounded *by Israel Defense Forces gunfire*. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit  a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a *10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.*
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html
> 
> United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 7 September 2004 At 07:45 *10-year old Raghda Adnan Al-Assar was struck in the head* by Israeli fire while sitting at her desk in UNRWA's Elementary
> 
> Girl's School On June 1 this year *two ten-year old children* in UNRWA's
> Al-Umariye Elementary Boys' School  in Rafah were hit by a bullet from a Israeli tank
> In March 2003
> Photos of a *12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers *and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
> http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/
> 
> T*hree-year-old *Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> *An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead* by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *Boy of 17, shot by Israeli soldiers, left bleeding overnight to die*
> September 8, 2003
> The bullet ridden corpse of Mohammad Abdullah Abu al-Husni, was found yesterday morning near the town of Jabaliya, where he lived in Gaza.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/left_to_die.htm
> 
> Haneen, who was *eight years old, had been shot twice in the head* by an Israeli soldier
> She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying,
> 'Mother, mother'. *Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other*.
> She was still in my arms and she died."
> 'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'
> 
> *This boy* was in his own house and an IDF soldier barges into the house and *shoots him dead Mohammed a 7-year-old boy  fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.*
> Tuesday December 23, 2003
> Israel Army action breeds fresh hatred
> 
> * Israel Baby is born then dies*
> September 11, 2003
> Birth and death at the checkpoint
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338937.html
> 
> * Three shot in the back by Israeli snipers, one a 15-year-old boy*
> January, 2004
> * 15 year old boy who was shot while standing in front of his house.* by a sniper.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> *Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head *while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> 15 year old boy &  Amer Kathym & Rouhi Hazem Shouman all *shot in the back by a sniper.*
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> An *eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops* in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *IDF shoots 13-year-old girl in the back with 20 bullets*  and then the IDF commander goes over to the girl and shoots her again to make sure she was dead
> Tue., October 05, 2004
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485274.html
> 
> *“I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."*
> http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/children.html
> http://tinyurl.com/8rmn2g3
> 
> 
> *Do you believe the Lord was happy to see what His children have done?*​



That's interesting, since we've just read about Bil'am, each time he tried to convince Hashem to destroy Israel, he blessed it. And didn't get any part in the world to come, because even when he blessed Israel it was out of sabotage and pride.

Do You believe that being among the Bil'am's of our day serves any good?


----------



## Wyatt earp

rylah said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are two (2) points of view that must be considered in their intent and purpose—
> 
> View #1 is a biblical view:*
> 
> (Deu 7:6 KJV) _For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy *God hath chosen thee *to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth._
> 
> (Deu 7:7 KJV)_ The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; *for ye were the fewest of all people*:_
> 
> The Lord chose them for a purpose and that purpose was to exemplify His teaching and from this example others would understand by this example and follow along this path bringing peace and tranquility to all.
> 
> (Deu 1:16 KJV)  _And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him._
> 
> (Deu 10:19 KJV)  *Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*
> 
> (Deu 24:19 KJV)  _When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands._
> 
> (Deu 24:20 KJV)  _When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> (Deu 24:21 KJV)  _When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> *****Then time passed on and the Lord returned to see what His children have done to further His cause----*
> 
> (Ezek 36:17 KJV)  _Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their ..own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman._
> 
> (Ezek 36:18 KJV) _Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it._
> 
> (Ezek 36:22 KJV) _Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went._
> 
> (Ezek 36:24 KJV) _For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land._
> 
> (Ezek 36:31 KJV) _Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations._
> 
> (Ezek 36:32 KJV) _Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel._
> 
> Clearly the Jews of that day did not follow His instructions and the Lord was appalled at what He saw. This time period may mark the time they were scattered because of the discretions he was witness to.
> 
> *View #2 is an historical view: *
> 
> July 22, 1946. *Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons. *
> 
> October 1, 1946. _The *British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions*, for which Irgun claimed responsibility._
> 
> _September 3, 1947. *A postal bomb* addressed to the British War Office *exploded in the post office sorting room in London*, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. _
> 
> December ll, 1947. _Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa*; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. *Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others*_, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses.  *Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others*._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.* _
> 
> June 1947. *Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.*
> 
> December ll, 1947. *Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded*_ when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa* ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*_
> 
> January 5, 1948. _The Arab-owned Semiramis *Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons*._
> 
> January 7, 1948. *Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb*_ at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the *murder of a British officer* near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country._
> 
> May 3, 1948. *A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer*_, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran._
> 
> May11, 1948. *A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker*_, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife._
> 
> And then as time passed on there was more for the Lord to see-------
> 
> *12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD* in front of your eyes
> Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
> A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes
> 
> *IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl* who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
> *http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html*
> 
> * UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
> An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach* and critically wounded *by Israel Defense Forces gunfire*. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit  a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a *10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.*
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html
> 
> United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 7 September 2004 At 07:45 *10-year old Raghda Adnan Al-Assar was struck in the head* by Israeli fire while sitting at her desk in UNRWA's Elementary
> 
> Girl's School On June 1 this year *two ten-year old children* in UNRWA's
> Al-Umariye Elementary Boys' School  in Rafah were hit by a bullet from a Israeli tank
> In March 2003
> Photos of a *12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers *and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
> http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/
> 
> T*hree-year-old *Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> *An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead* by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *Boy of 17, shot by Israeli soldiers, left bleeding overnight to die*
> September 8, 2003
> The bullet ridden corpse of Mohammad Abdullah Abu al-Husni, was found yesterday morning near the town of Jabaliya, where he lived in Gaza.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/left_to_die.htm
> 
> Haneen, who was *eight years old, had been shot twice in the head* by an Israeli soldier
> She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying,
> 'Mother, mother'. *Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other*.
> She was still in my arms and she died."
> 'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'
> 
> *This boy* was in his own house and an IDF soldier barges into the house and *shoots him dead Mohammed a 7-year-old boy  fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.*
> Tuesday December 23, 2003
> Israel Army action breeds fresh hatred
> 
> * Israel Baby is born then dies*
> September 11, 2003
> Birth and death at the checkpoint
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338937.html
> 
> * Three shot in the back by Israeli snipers, one a 15-year-old boy*
> January, 2004
> * 15 year old boy who was shot while standing in front of his house.* by a sniper.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> *Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head *while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> 15 year old boy &  Amer Kathym & Rouhi Hazem Shouman all *shot in the back by a sniper.*
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> An *eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops* in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *IDF shoots 13-year-old girl in the back with 20 bullets*  and then the IDF commander goes over to the girl and shoots her again to make sure she was dead
> Tue., October 05, 2004
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485274.html
> 
> *“I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."*
> http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/children.html
> http://tinyurl.com/8rmn2g3
> 
> 
> *Do you believe the Lord was happy to see what His children have done?*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since we've just read about Bil'am, each time he tried to convince Hashem to destroy Israel, he blessed it. And didn't get any part in the world to come, because even when he blessed Israel it was out of sabotage and pride.
> 
> Do You believe that being among the Bil'am's of our day serves any good?
Click to expand...


*That's interesting, since we've just read about Bil'am... however each time he tried to convince Hashem to destroy Israel, he blessed it.*

Wow ...


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan
> Platinum Member states-------
> 
> _*Zionism *: a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel._
> 
> _*Zionism*: an international movement to oppose the forces arrayed against the Jewish state, something both meaningful and useful – even essential. It did not end when the state was declared; thanks to our enemies, Zionism is a continuing struggle._
> 
> _Hasbara
> "The natural response against anti-Zionism which derives from the hatred of Jews and the desire to destroy Israel as a sovereign Jewish nation"_
> 
> _Denialism is a region of the mind most preferred by those who reject the Jewish Nation/People's right to sovereignty on their own Ancient Land._
> .......................................................
> 
> In my view Zionism is a cult that sees themselves as special and above all others. They represent the pure definition of racism. The only other cultist society that I can think of was the Germans during WW2.
> 
> I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Hitler was a Jew too.
> *Israel was a person not a place and the Lord did not look upon him kindly *
> 
> (Genesis 32:28 KJV) _And he said, *Thy name shall be called no more Iacob, but Israel*: for as a prince hast thou power with God, and with men, and hast preuailed._
> 
> (Ezek 36:17 KJV) _*Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their ..own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman.*_
> 
> (Ezek 36:18 KJV) _Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it._
> 
> (Ezek 36:32 KJV)_ Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: *be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.*_
> 
> Still all is not lost, they can repent, ask the Lord for forgiveness and forgiveness would be given.
> 
> But they have to ask for it; before they are forgiven.
> BTW Israel is not an ancient land now or ever.
> 
> 
> In my view of things
> no animosity intended or implied



In the context of discussing how it is to be a 'chosen nation',
Isn't it great that the Torah doesn't spare any criticism of Israel?

In the meanwhile, Israel is the most tolerant and diverse society in the Middle east.


----------



## rylah

bear513 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are two (2) points of view that must be considered in their intent and purpose—
> 
> View #1 is a biblical view:*
> 
> (Deu 7:6 KJV) _For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy *God hath chosen thee *to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth._
> 
> (Deu 7:7 KJV)_ The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; *for ye were the fewest of all people*:_
> 
> The Lord chose them for a purpose and that purpose was to exemplify His teaching and from this example others would understand by this example and follow along this path bringing peace and tranquility to all.
> 
> (Deu 1:16 KJV)  _And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him._
> 
> (Deu 10:19 KJV)  *Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*
> 
> (Deu 24:19 KJV)  _When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands._
> 
> (Deu 24:20 KJV)  _When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> (Deu 24:21 KJV)  _When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> *****Then time passed on and the Lord returned to see what His children have done to further His cause----*
> 
> (Ezek 36:17 KJV)  _Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their ..own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman._
> 
> (Ezek 36:18 KJV) _Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it._
> 
> (Ezek 36:22 KJV) _Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went._
> 
> (Ezek 36:24 KJV) _For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land._
> 
> (Ezek 36:31 KJV) _Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations._
> 
> (Ezek 36:32 KJV) _Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel._
> 
> Clearly the Jews of that day did not follow His instructions and the Lord was appalled at what He saw. This time period may mark the time they were scattered because of the discretions he was witness to.
> 
> *View #2 is an historical view: *
> 
> July 22, 1946. *Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons. *
> 
> October 1, 1946. _The *British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions*, for which Irgun claimed responsibility._
> 
> _September 3, 1947. *A postal bomb* addressed to the British War Office *exploded in the post office sorting room in London*, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. _
> 
> December ll, 1947. _Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa*; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. *Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others*_, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses.  *Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others*._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.* _
> 
> June 1947. *Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.*
> 
> December ll, 1947. *Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded*_ when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa* ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*_
> 
> January 5, 1948. _The Arab-owned Semiramis *Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons*._
> 
> January 7, 1948. *Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb*_ at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the *murder of a British officer* near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country._
> 
> May 3, 1948. *A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer*_, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran._
> 
> May11, 1948. *A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker*_, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife._
> 
> And then as time passed on there was more for the Lord to see-------
> 
> *12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD* in front of your eyes
> Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
> A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes
> 
> *IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl* who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
> *http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html*
> 
> * UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
> An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach* and critically wounded *by Israel Defense Forces gunfire*. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit  a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a *10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.*
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html
> 
> United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 7 September 2004 At 07:45 *10-year old Raghda Adnan Al-Assar was struck in the head* by Israeli fire while sitting at her desk in UNRWA's Elementary
> 
> Girl's School On June 1 this year *two ten-year old children* in UNRWA's
> Al-Umariye Elementary Boys' School  in Rafah were hit by a bullet from a Israeli tank
> In March 2003
> Photos of a *12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers *and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
> http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/
> 
> T*hree-year-old *Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> *An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead* by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *Boy of 17, shot by Israeli soldiers, left bleeding overnight to die*
> September 8, 2003
> The bullet ridden corpse of Mohammad Abdullah Abu al-Husni, was found yesterday morning near the town of Jabaliya, where he lived in Gaza.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/left_to_die.htm
> 
> Haneen, who was *eight years old, had been shot twice in the head* by an Israeli soldier
> She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying,
> 'Mother, mother'. *Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other*.
> She was still in my arms and she died."
> 'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'
> 
> *This boy* was in his own house and an IDF soldier barges into the house and *shoots him dead Mohammed a 7-year-old boy  fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.*
> Tuesday December 23, 2003
> Israel Army action breeds fresh hatred
> 
> * Israel Baby is born then dies*
> September 11, 2003
> Birth and death at the checkpoint
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338937.html
> 
> * Three shot in the back by Israeli snipers, one a 15-year-old boy*
> January, 2004
> * 15 year old boy who was shot while standing in front of his house.* by a sniper.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> *Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head *while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> 15 year old boy &  Amer Kathym & Rouhi Hazem Shouman all *shot in the back by a sniper.*
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> An *eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops* in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *IDF shoots 13-year-old girl in the back with 20 bullets*  and then the IDF commander goes over to the girl and shoots her again to make sure she was dead
> Tue., October 05, 2004
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485274.html
> 
> *“I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."*
> http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/children.html
> http://tinyurl.com/8rmn2g3
> 
> 
> *Do you believe the Lord was happy to see what His children have done?*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since we've just read about Bil'am, each time he tried to convince Hashem to destroy Israel, he blessed it. And didn't get any part in the world to come, because even when he blessed Israel it was out of sabotage and pride.
> 
> Do You believe that being among the Bil'am's of our day serves any good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's interesting, since we've just read about Bil'am... however each time he tried to convince Hashem to destroy Israel, he blessed it.*
> 
> Wow ...
Click to expand...


I see You've brought a complex argument there...


----------



## Wyatt earp

rylah said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are two (2) points of view that must be considered in their intent and purpose—
> 
> View #1 is a biblical view:*
> 
> (Deu 7:6 KJV) _For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy *God hath chosen thee *to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth._
> 
> (Deu 7:7 KJV)_ The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; *for ye were the fewest of all people*:_
> 
> The Lord chose them for a purpose and that purpose was to exemplify His teaching and from this example others would understand by this example and follow along this path bringing peace and tranquility to all.
> 
> (Deu 1:16 KJV)  _And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him._
> 
> (Deu 10:19 KJV)  *Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.*
> 
> (Deu 24:19 KJV)  _When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands._
> 
> (Deu 24:20 KJV)  _When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> (Deu 24:21 KJV)  _When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow._
> 
> *****Then time passed on and the Lord returned to see what His children have done to further His cause----*
> 
> (Ezek 36:17 KJV)  _Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their ..own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman._
> 
> (Ezek 36:18 KJV) _Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it._
> 
> (Ezek 36:22 KJV) _Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went._
> 
> (Ezek 36:24 KJV) _For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land._
> 
> (Ezek 36:31 KJV) _Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations._
> 
> (Ezek 36:32 KJV) _Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel._
> 
> Clearly the Jews of that day did not follow His instructions and the Lord was appalled at what He saw. This time period may mark the time they were scattered because of the discretions he was witness to.
> 
> *View #2 is an historical view: *
> 
> July 22, 1946. *Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons. *
> 
> October 1, 1946. _The *British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions*, for which Irgun claimed responsibility._
> 
> _September 3, 1947. *A postal bomb* addressed to the British War Office *exploded in the post office sorting room in London*, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. _
> 
> December ll, 1947. _Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa*; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. *Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others*_, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses.  *Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others*._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.* _
> 
> June 1947. *Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.*
> 
> December ll, 1947. *Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded*_ when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa* ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa._
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables*_ and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*_
> 
> January 5, 1948. _The Arab-owned Semiramis *Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons*._
> 
> January 7, 1948. *Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb*_ at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the *murder of a British officer* near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country._
> 
> May 3, 1948. *A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer*_, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran._
> 
> May11, 1948. *A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker*_, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife._
> 
> And then as time passed on there was more for the Lord to see-------
> 
> *12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD* in front of your eyes
> Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
> A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes
> 
> *IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl* who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
> *http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html*
> 
> * UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
> An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach* and critically wounded *by Israel Defense Forces gunfire*. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit  a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a *10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.*
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html
> 
> United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 7 September 2004 At 07:45 *10-year old Raghda Adnan Al-Assar was struck in the head* by Israeli fire while sitting at her desk in UNRWA's Elementary
> 
> Girl's School On June 1 this year *two ten-year old children* in UNRWA's
> Al-Umariye Elementary Boys' School  in Rafah were hit by a bullet from a Israeli tank
> In March 2003
> Photos of a *12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers *and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
> http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/
> 
> T*hree-year-old *Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> *An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead* by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *Boy of 17, shot by Israeli soldiers, left bleeding overnight to die*
> September 8, 2003
> The bullet ridden corpse of Mohammad Abdullah Abu al-Husni, was found yesterday morning near the town of Jabaliya, where he lived in Gaza.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/left_to_die.htm
> 
> Haneen, who was *eight years old, had been shot twice in the head* by an Israeli soldier
> She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying,
> 'Mother, mother'. *Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other*.
> She was still in my arms and she died."
> 'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'
> 
> *This boy* was in his own house and an IDF soldier barges into the house and *shoots him dead Mohammed a 7-year-old boy  fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.*
> Tuesday December 23, 2003
> Israel Army action breeds fresh hatred
> 
> * Israel Baby is born then dies*
> September 11, 2003
> Birth and death at the checkpoint
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338937.html
> 
> * Three shot in the back by Israeli snipers, one a 15-year-old boy*
> January, 2004
> * 15 year old boy who was shot while standing in front of his house.* by a sniper.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> *Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head *while buying candy with her friends.
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> 15 year old boy &  Amer Kathym & Rouhi Hazem Shouman all *shot in the back by a sniper.*
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> An *eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops* in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *IDF shoots 13-year-old girl in the back with 20 bullets*  and then the IDF commander goes over to the girl and shoots her again to make sure she was dead
> Tue., October 05, 2004
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485274.html
> 
> *“I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."*
> http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/children.html
> http://tinyurl.com/8rmn2g3
> 
> 
> *Do you believe the Lord was happy to see what His children have done?*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since we've just read about Bil'am, each time he tried to convince Hashem to destroy Israel, he blessed it. And didn't get any part in the world to come, because even when he blessed Israel it was out of sabotage and pride.
> 
> Do You believe that being among the Bil'am's of our day serves any good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That's interesting, since we've just read about Bil'am... however each time he tried to convince Hashem to destroy Israel, he blessed it.*
> 
> Wow ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see You've brought a complex argument there...
Click to expand...



More then that I realized  something ..


----------



## Wyatt earp

I studied the bible as hell on wheels , i would write what i learned , I would buy books rent them , history books I tried to search for the truth.. I read the Catholic bible and so many Christian bibles back and forth .. 

People threw me out of missions , because I was always searching for god..


----------



## rylah

bear513 said:


> I studied the bible as hell on wheels , i would write what i learned , I would buy books rent them , history books I tried to search for the truth.. I read the Catholic bible and so many Christian bibles back and forth ..
> 
> People threw me out of missions , because I was always searching for god..



Now synthesize it with what You say realized from the example of Bil'am, and explain.


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> In my view Zionism is a cult that sees themselves as special and above all others. They represent the pure definition of racism.



Yes. But please understand that "your view" is not a representation of reality.

There is no objective measure of Zionism which matches an objective definition of a cult nor of racism nor of any inherent "specialness".

Zionism is no different than Tibetanism. Or Catalanism. Or Coast Salishism. Or Kurdishism. Or Cherokeeism. Or Serbianism. Or Croatiaism. Or Western Saharanism. Or Koreanism. Or Maoriism. Or any of hundreds of different "isms" in our world. It is simply the right of a people to sovereign self-determination over some of their historical homeland.

To deny that to everyone is to reject the construct of current international law. To deny that to some and not to others is hypocrisy. To deny that to only the  Jewish people is plain and simple antisemitism.


----------



## Wyatt earp

rylah said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied the bible as hell on wheels , i would write what i learned , I would buy books rent them , history books I tried to search for the truth.. I read the Catholic bible and so many Christian bibles back and forth ..
> 
> People threw me out of missions , because I was always searching for god..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now synthesize it with what You say realized from the example of Bil'am, and explain.
Click to expand...


Simple ... explore it.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Shusha said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view Zionism is a cult that sees themselves as special and above all others. They represent the pure definition of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But please understand that "your view" is not a representation of reality.
> 
> There is no objective measure of Zionism which matches an objective definition of a cult nor of racism nor of any inherent "specialness".
> 
> Zionism is no different than Tibetanism. Or Catalanism. Or Coast Salishism. Or Kurdishism. Or Cherokeeism. Or Serbianism. Or Croatiaism. Or Western Saharanism. Or Koreanism. Or Maoriism. Or any of hundreds of different "isms" in our world. It is simply the right of a people to sovereign self-determination over some of their historical homeland.
> 
> To deny that to everyone is to reject the construct of current international law. To deny that to some and not to others is hypocrisy. To deny that to only the  Jewish people is plain and simple antisemitism.
Click to expand...


International law don't mean anything ..


----------



## Shusha

bear513 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view Zionism is a cult that sees themselves as special and above all others. They represent the pure definition of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But please understand that "your view" is not a representation of reality.
> 
> There is no objective measure of Zionism which matches an objective definition of a cult nor of racism nor of any inherent "specialness".
> 
> Zionism is no different than Tibetanism. Or Catalanism. Or Coast Salishism. Or Kurdishism. Or Cherokeeism. Or Serbianism. Or Croatiaism. Or Western Saharanism. Or Koreanism. Or Maoriism. Or any of hundreds of different "isms" in our world. It is simply the right of a people to sovereign self-determination over some of their historical homeland.
> 
> To deny that to everyone is to reject the construct of current international law. To deny that to some and not to others is hypocrisy. To deny that to only the  Jewish people is plain and simple antisemitism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law don't mean anything ..
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## Wyatt earp

They wanted confirmation.. they never realized it..


----------



## Shusha

bear513 said:


> They wanted confirmation.. they never realized it..



Is this an answer to my why question?

Who wanted confirmation?  Who never realized it?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Shusha said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view Zionism is a cult that sees themselves as special and above all others. They represent the pure definition of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But please understand that "your view" is not a representation of reality.
> 
> There is no objective measure of Zionism which matches an objective definition of a cult nor of racism nor of any inherent "specialness".
> 
> Zionism is no different than Tibetanism. Or Catalanism. Or Coast Salishism. Or Kurdishism. Or Cherokeeism. Or Serbianism. Or Croatiaism. Or Western Saharanism. Or Koreanism. Or Maoriism. Or any of hundreds of different "isms" in our world. It is simply the right of a people to sovereign self-determination over some of their historical homeland.
> 
> To deny that to everyone is to reject the construct of current international law. To deny that to some and not to others is hypocrisy. To deny that to only the  Jewish people is plain and simple antisemitism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> International law don't mean anything ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...




USA to big, tojo realized it..

God made us put the Jews back


----------



## Wyatt earp

God is way to powerful,  he does this crap all the time , if you really study him , you can go through all the bibles ,history  books. 

Google, this mother fucker is real..

I am saying this as a guy who is dieing


----------



## Wyatt earp

When you get on the door steps you will understand 
.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Your stomach hurts you shake and God calls you home...thats what's happening to me


----------



## rylah

bear513 said:


> They wanted confirmation.. they never realized it..



Confirmation was given by the nations and the sovereign powers at the time.


----------



## watchingfromafar

admonit said:


> 2. The Jewish people managed to survive as a nation.



And yet 2/3 of the world Jewish population do not and don't want to live in Israel today.

the truth will set you free


----------



## watchingfromafar

admonit said:


> 3. The Jewish people today again speak the language of Torah.



The torah is not a language, it is a version of the Old Testament and five (5) verses say it best best--

*Ezekiel*

25And you, *profane wicked prince of Israel*, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end,

26Thus says the Lord GOD; Remove the turban, and take off the crown: this shall not remain the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.

27I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he comes whose right it is; and I will give it to him.

31And I will pour out my indignation upon you, I will blow against you in the fire of my wrath, and deliver you into the hand of brutal men, skilful to destroy.

32You shall be for fuel to the fire; your blood shall be in the midst of the land; you shall be no more remembered: for I the LORD have spoken it.

*According to a 2002 study by the *Jewish Agency*, "the number of Jews in the world is declining at an average of 50,000 per year."*

Jewish population by country - Wikipedia


----------



## watchingfromafar

admonit said:


> 5. The Jewish people, defending their *promised land*, defeated their numerous and power enemies.



_Is the land of “Israel” their true ancient homeland?_

_*Promised Land*_

_“Moses went up Mount Nebo to the top of Pisgah, looked over the *promised land of Israel* spread out before him, and died, at the age of one hundred and twenty, according to Talmudic legend on 7 Adar, his 120th birthday exactly. _

_Moab is the historical name for a mountainous strip of land in modern-day _*Jordan *_running along the eastern shore of the _*Dead Sea. *_In ancient times, it was home to the kingdom of the Moabites, a people often in conflict with their Israelite neighbors to the west._

_The Moabites were a historical people, whose existence is attested to by numerous archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over an unnamed son of King_ _Omri of Israel. Their capital was _*Dibon, *_located next to the modern Jordanian town of _*Dhiban.*_”_

_Moab - New World Encyclopedia_


NO, it is not and that "promise" came with conditions that they failed to follow then; and today they continue to disobey His commandments.


----------



## Sixties Fan

This is not a thread about the G-D of Abraham giving the land to the Jewish people.  It is about the Mandate for Palestine and what it took for Israel to be created.

Let us keep the thread on topic, please.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> This is not a thread about the G-D of Abraham giving the land to the Jewish people.  It is about the Mandate for Palestine and what it took for Israel to be created.
> 
> Let us keep the thread on topic, please.


OK.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about the G-D of Abraham giving the land to the Jewish people.  It is about the Mandate for Palestine and what it took for Israel to be created.
> 
> Let us keep the thread on topic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
Click to expand...

Same garbage by Ilan Pappe.

Let us see him have the guts to tell the world how the Muslims ethnic cleansed the Land of Israel/Mandate for Palestine of as many Jews as they could, from Gaza to TransJordan, from 1920 to 1948.

THEN.....we will discuss it.


----------



## watchingfromafar

bear513 said:


> God made us put the Jews back



Yes, He did------
(Ezek 36:24 KJV) _For* I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.*_

(Ezek 36:31 KJV) _Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations._

(Ezek 36:32 KJV) _Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, Ohouse of Israel._


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about the G-D of Abraham giving the land to the Jewish people.  It is about the Mandate for Palestine and what it took for Israel to be created.
> 
> Let us keep the thread on topic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
Click to expand...


It's comical how your frantic cutting and pasting is so laughably inept. 

The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about the G-D of Abraham giving the land to the Jewish people.  It is about the Mandate for Palestine and what it took for Israel to be created.
> 
> Let us keep the thread on topic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical how your frantic cutting and pasting is so laughably inept.
> 
> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.
Click to expand...

Link by non Israeli source?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about the G-D of Abraham giving the land to the Jewish people.  It is about the Mandate for Palestine and what it took for Israel to be created.
> 
> Let us keep the thread on topic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical how your frantic cutting and pasting is so laughably inept.
> 
> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link by non Israeli source?
Click to expand...

Stop with your bellyaching.  You have been given links and evidence multiple times.

We are NOT playing your game.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about the G-D of Abraham giving the land to the Jewish people.  It is about the Mandate for Palestine and what it took for Israel to be created.
> 
> Let us keep the thread on topic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical how your frantic cutting and pasting is so laughably inept.
> 
> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link by non Israeli source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop with your bellyaching.  You have been given links and evidence multiple times.
> 
> We are NOT playing your game.
Click to expand...

All by sources attached to Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a thread about the G-D of Abraham giving the land to the Jewish people.  It is about the Mandate for Palestine and what it took for Israel to be created.
> 
> Let us keep the thread on topic, please.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's comical how your frantic cutting and pasting is so laughably inept.
> 
> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link by non Israeli source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop with your bellyaching.  You have been given links and evidence multiple times.
> 
> We are NOT playing your game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All by sources attached to Israel.
Click to expand...

All by historical facts.

Deny, reject them all you like.

Your thoughts and BDS attempts are worthless.

Just get back to the topic of the thread.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's comical how your frantic cutting and pasting is so laughably inept.
> 
> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link by non Israeli source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop with your bellyaching.  You have been given links and evidence multiple times.
> 
> We are NOT playing your game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All by sources attached to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All by historical facts.
> 
> Deny, reject them all you like.
> 
> Your thoughts and BDS attempts are worthless.
> 
> Just get back to the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

Not likely to get any truth out of Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's comical how your frantic cutting and pasting is so laughably inept.
> 
> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.
> 
> 
> 
> Link by non Israeli source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop with your bellyaching.  You have been given links and evidence multiple times.
> 
> We are NOT playing your game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All by sources attached to Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All by historical facts.
> 
> Deny, reject them all you like.
> 
> Your thoughts and BDS attempts are worthless.
> 
> Just get back to the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely to get any truth out of Israel.
Click to expand...

You continue to be off topic and trolling.

What you actually mean, as the Sunday Christian that you are, is that no one should EVER believe Jews about anything.

And you make sure to repeat this Christian mantra on all the threads to make sure that Israel and Jews is equated, and Christian, Muslims and Atheists without brains, like yours, will go:
But you are right !!   Israel (JEWS) cannot ever be trusted or believed about anything.

2000 years of Christian teachings.

You are the supreme teacher of each and every bit ever invented about Jews......and now by extension ......Israel.


Too bad for you.....

Am Israel Chai

THE  PEOPLE  OF  ISRAEL  LIVE


And we are NOT going anywhere.


(Good day for you to go to confession )


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.



Then please explain this-------------
Googled “*spitting on Christians*” and I got 632000 results (0.34 seconds). Can you guess who the spitter's were/are? As a Christian does this trouble...you?

*Spitting update
Reality is at your door. Muslims do not do the following & now you know who does*
*Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them - Haaretz ...*
https://www.haaretz.com/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1...

_ Oct 12, 2004 - *Christians* in Jerusalem Want Jews to Stop *Spitting* on Them. A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window._
*Holy Spit: Why Do Ultra-Orthodox Jews Spit at Christians? | Religion ...*
religiondispatches.org/holy-spit-why-do-ultra-orthodox-jews-spit-at-christians/
_ Apr 7, 2010 - A very embarrassing and persistent problem has arisen in some of the sacred sites in Jerusalem where *Christians* and Jews cross each other's paths. Teenagers from a small sector of the city's many Ultra-Orthodox (“Haredi”) Ashkenazi Jewish communities have taken to *spitting* at clerics wearing prominent ..._
*Ynetnews Jewish Scene - ADL: Spitting at Christians a 'repulsive act'*
ADL: Spitting at Christians a repulsive act

_ ADL: *Spitting* at *Christians* a 'repulsive act'. Jewish group calls on Israel's Chief Rabbinate to denounce decades-old ultra-Orthodox practice of *spitting* at *Christian* clergymen on the street. 'This is a hateful act of persecution against another faith group'. Ynetnews|Published: 15.12.11 , 15:19. The Anti-Defamation League _...
*Brazilian 'Fiddler' director: Orthodox Jews spit on Christians | The ...*
_Brazilian ‘Fiddler’ director: Orthodox Jews spit on Christians...
Apr 28, 2016 - RIO DE JANEIRO – An acclaimed Brazilian theater director who recently put on a successful production of “Fiddler on the Roof” compared a lawmaker who spit on a colleague to Orthodox Jews, whom he said routinely *spit on Christians*. Claudio Botelho made the remarks last week on Facebook, according ..._

Jan 31, 2013 - 
*Christians Feel Growing Oppression in Israel - Open Doors USA*
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/take.../christians-feel-growing-oppression-in-israel/

_ The oppression of *Christians* in Israel comes mostly from Ultra-Orthodox Jews; though a minority in the country, the religious group has a major influence. In February, several Israeli newspapers had reports on the growing oppression. The *spitting* is especially a problem for priests and pastors who stand out with their ..._
*Ultra-orthodox Jews 'must stop religious abuse' | World news | The ...*
Ultra-orthodox Jews 'must stop religious abuse'

_ Oct 16, 2004 - Jerusalem's *Christian* community has demanded that Jewish leaders and the Israeli government take action against what they claim is growing harassment of their clergy by religious Jews.*Christians* say ultra-Orthodox Jewish students *spit* at them or at the ground when they pass. There have also been ..._
*Spitting on Christians, who be the spitters? | Christian Forums*
https://www.christianforums.com › ... › Social Justice Ministries

_ Jul 27, 2017 - 6 posts - ‎1 author
*Spitting on God's Image | Christianity Today*
www.christianitytoday.com › The Magazine › 2004 › December
Shirvanian said *spitting* against *Christian* clergyman had been going on for years. He said the assailants are religious Jews—men, women, teens, and children. "This shows that it is a phenomenon that is prevailing in their religious education and it should be corrected," he said. Daniel Rossing, director of the Jerusalem ..._
*ADL: Jews Should Not Spit at Christians - National Catholic Register*
www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/adl-jews-should-not-spit-at-christians

_ Jan 16, 2012 - The Anti-Defamation League has refused to accept the explanation by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate about its efforts to combat the phenomenon of Ultra-Orthodox Jews *spitting* at *Christian *clergymen in Jerusalem's Old City. While the Rabbinate asserts the ADL is “misguided' in publicly lashing out at the ..._

The truth will set you free


----------



## watchingfromafar

*(creation of Israel)*​
The 51st State of the USA will be~~

For all practical purposes Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.

What’s up?

I think it is time for a national vote on this.

Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.

How do you vote-?

This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.

BTW We, as in American citizens owe Israel nothing, nada, zip so I as---

In Jerusalem Israeli’s spit on Christians and the US press never reports it.

What’s up------?


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then please explain this-------------
> Googled “*spitting on Christians*” and I got 632000 results (0.34 seconds). Can you guess who the spitter's were/are? As a Christian does this trouble...you?
> 
> *Spitting update
> Reality is at your door. Muslims do not do the following & now you know who does
> Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them - Haaretz ...*
> https://www.haaretz.com/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1...
> 
> _ Oct 12, 2004 - *Christians* in Jerusalem Want Jews to Stop *Spitting* on Them. A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window._
> *Holy Spit: Why Do Ultra-Orthodox Jews Spit at Christians? | Religion ...*
> religiondispatches.org/holy-spit-why-do-ultra-orthodox-jews-spit-at-christians/
> _ Apr 7, 2010 - A very embarrassing and persistent problem has arisen in some of the sacred sites in Jerusalem where *Christians* and Jews cross each other's paths. Teenagers from a small sector of the city's many Ultra-Orthodox (“Haredi”) Ashkenazi Jewish communities have taken to *spitting* at clerics wearing prominent ..._
> *Ynetnews Jewish Scene - ADL: Spitting at Christians a 'repulsive act'*
> ADL: Spitting at Christians a repulsive act
> 
> _ ADL: *Spitting* at *Christians* a 'repulsive act'. Jewish group calls on Israel's Chief Rabbinate to denounce decades-old ultra-Orthodox practice of *spitting* at *Christian* clergymen on the street. 'This is a hateful act of persecution against another faith group'. Ynetnews|Published: 15.12.11 , 15:19. The Anti-Defamation League _...
> *Brazilian 'Fiddler' director: Orthodox Jews spit on Christians | The ...*
> _Brazilian ‘Fiddler’ director: Orthodox Jews spit on Christians...
> Apr 28, 2016 - RIO DE JANEIRO – An acclaimed Brazilian theater director who recently put on a successful production of “Fiddler on the Roof” compared a lawmaker who spit on a colleague to Orthodox Jews, whom he said routinely *spit on Christians*. Claudio Botelho made the remarks last week on Facebook, according ..._
> 
> Jan 31, 2013 -
> *Christians Feel Growing Oppression in Israel - Open Doors USA*
> https://www.opendoorsusa.org/take.../christians-feel-growing-oppression-in-israel/
> 
> _ The oppression of *Christians* in Israel comes mostly from Ultra-Orthodox Jews; though a minority in the country, the religious group has a major influence. In February, several Israeli newspapers had reports on the growing oppression. The *spitting* is especially a problem for priests and pastors who stand out with their ..._
> *Ultra-orthodox Jews 'must stop religious abuse' | World news | The ...*
> Ultra-orthodox Jews 'must stop religious abuse'
> 
> _ Oct 16, 2004 - Jerusalem's *Christian* community has demanded that Jewish leaders and the Israeli government take action against what they claim is growing harassment of their clergy by religious Jews.*Christians* say ultra-Orthodox Jewish students *spit* at them or at the ground when they pass. There have also been ..._
> *Spitting on Christians, who be the spitters? | Christian Forums*
> https://www.christianforums.com › ... › Social Justice Ministries
> 
> _ Jul 27, 2017 - 6 posts - ‎1 author
> *Spitting on God's Image | Christianity Today*
> www.christianitytoday.com › The Magazine › 2004 › December
> Shirvanian said *spitting* against *Christian* clergyman had been going on for years. He said the assailants are religious Jews—men, women, teens, and children. "This shows that it is a phenomenon that is prevailing in their religious education and it should be corrected," he said. Daniel Rossing, director of the Jerusalem ..._
> *ADL: Jews Should Not Spit at Christians - National Catholic Register*
> www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/adl-jews-should-not-spit-at-christians
> 
> _ Jan 16, 2012 - The Anti-Defamation League has refused to accept the explanation by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate about its efforts to combat the phenomenon of Ultra-Orthodox Jews *spitting* at *Christian *clergymen in Jerusalem's Old City. While the Rabbinate asserts the ADL is “misguided' in publicly lashing out at the ..._
> 
> The truth will set you free
Click to expand...


They should go try proselytizing publicaly in Gaza,
I'm sure will be welcomed with open arms...

The mission has reached virtually every city, they're putting Roman Bibles and flyers into postboxes of every Israeli they can reach, big road posters. They especially target the Jewish Orthodox community and regular people who come to religious sites to pray.

When You sell to people something that is 180 degrees opposed their values, and so aggressively....You'll get a variety of responses - from total ignoring to hostility, that's natural taken that a vast majority of these people had their whole families wiped out by Christians just 2 generations ago. Not to mention the 2000 years of Christian dark ages.

As if Christian clergy has ever spared Jews of "special attention", was not at the center of vicious blood libels and massacres and attempts to destroy Jewish heritage.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_

Oh come on, let's be reasonable.



watchingfromafar said:


> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?


*(COMMENT)*

This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:

P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
• Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •

•  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;

•  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;

•  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;

•  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;

•  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;

•  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and

•  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States



watchingfromafar said:


> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?


*(COMMENT)*

Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.



watchingfromafar said:


> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.


*(COMMENT)*

Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ethnic cleansing in so-called Pal'istan has been the purge of Christians and Jews by islamics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then please explain this-------------
> Googled “*spitting on Christians*” and I got 632000 results (0.34 seconds). Can you guess who the spitter's were/are? As a Christian does this trouble...you?
> 
> *Spitting update
> Reality is at your door. Muslims do not do the following & now you know who does
> Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them - Haaretz ...*
> https://www.haaretz.com/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1...
> 
> _ Oct 12, 2004 - *Christians* in Jerusalem Want Jews to Stop *Spitting* on Them. A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window._
> *Holy Spit: Why Do Ultra-Orthodox Jews Spit at Christians? | Religion ...*
> religiondispatches.org/holy-spit-why-do-ultra-orthodox-jews-spit-at-christians/
> _ Apr 7, 2010 - A very embarrassing and persistent problem has arisen in some of the sacred sites in Jerusalem where *Christians* and Jews cross each other's paths. Teenagers from a small sector of the city's many Ultra-Orthodox (“Haredi”) Ashkenazi Jewish communities have taken to *spitting* at clerics wearing prominent ..._
> *Ynetnews Jewish Scene - ADL: Spitting at Christians a 'repulsive act'*
> ADL: Spitting at Christians a repulsive act
> 
> _ ADL: *Spitting* at *Christians* a 'repulsive act'. Jewish group calls on Israel's Chief Rabbinate to denounce decades-old ultra-Orthodox practice of *spitting* at *Christian* clergymen on the street. 'This is a hateful act of persecution against another faith group'. Ynetnews|Published: 15.12.11 , 15:19. The Anti-Defamation League _...
> *Brazilian 'Fiddler' director: Orthodox Jews spit on Christians | The ...*
> _Brazilian ‘Fiddler’ director: Orthodox Jews spit on Christians...
> Apr 28, 2016 - RIO DE JANEIRO – An acclaimed Brazilian theater director who recently put on a successful production of “Fiddler on the Roof” compared a lawmaker who spit on a colleague to Orthodox Jews, whom he said routinely *spit on Christians*. Claudio Botelho made the remarks last week on Facebook, according ..._
> 
> Jan 31, 2013 -
> *Christians Feel Growing Oppression in Israel - Open Doors USA*
> https://www.opendoorsusa.org/take.../christians-feel-growing-oppression-in-israel/
> 
> _ The oppression of *Christians* in Israel comes mostly from Ultra-Orthodox Jews; though a minority in the country, the religious group has a major influence. In February, several Israeli newspapers had reports on the growing oppression. The *spitting* is especially a problem for priests and pastors who stand out with their ..._
> *Ultra-orthodox Jews 'must stop religious abuse' | World news | The ...*
> Ultra-orthodox Jews 'must stop religious abuse'
> 
> _ Oct 16, 2004 - Jerusalem's *Christian* community has demanded that Jewish leaders and the Israeli government take action against what they claim is growing harassment of their clergy by religious Jews.*Christians* say ultra-Orthodox Jewish students *spit* at them or at the ground when they pass. There have also been ..._
> *Spitting on Christians, who be the spitters? | Christian Forums*
> https://www.christianforums.com › ... › Social Justice Ministries
> 
> _ Jul 27, 2017 - 6 posts - ‎1 author
> *Spitting on God's Image | Christianity Today*
> www.christianitytoday.com › The Magazine › 2004 › December
> Shirvanian said *spitting* against *Christian* clergyman had been going on for years. He said the assailants are religious Jews—men, women, teens, and children. "This shows that it is a phenomenon that is prevailing in their religious education and it should be corrected," he said. Daniel Rossing, director of the Jerusalem ..._
> *ADL: Jews Should Not Spit at Christians - National Catholic Register*
> www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/adl-jews-should-not-spit-at-christians
> 
> _ Jan 16, 2012 - The Anti-Defamation League has refused to accept the explanation by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate about its efforts to combat the phenomenon of Ultra-Orthodox Jews *spitting* at *Christian *clergymen in Jerusalem's Old City. While the Rabbinate asserts the ADL is “misguided' in publicly lashing out at the ..._
> 
> The truth will set you free
Click to expand...


That was a lot of cutting and pasting but whatever for?

It had no connection to my posted comment. 

The truth eludes you.


----------



## Sixties Fan

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Dear fellow posters,

Let us stop answering posts which have nothing to do with the thread.  Posts which should be on the religion community.

"Watchingfromafar" is one of the many birds who like to fly over to these threads and spread some religion and other nonsense which haver nothing to do with the threads per se.

We have clearly stopped posting about the Mandate and the  creation of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
Click to expand...


Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy. 

Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan. 

I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
Click to expand...

With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
Click to expand...

Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.

After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.

If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.

Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.

Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.

A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
Click to expand...

The destruction of Palestine has always been Israel's goal and they have mooched enough equipment to do it.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The destruction of Palestine has always been Israel's goal and they have mooched enough equipment to do it.
Click to expand...

 1)  ISRAEL  IS  PALESTINE, therefore Israel wanting to destroy itself is all in your sad Christian head.  You really know how to invent things.

 2)  Again, for your frail mind......There NEVER,  EVER was an Arab country called Palestine ANYWHERE in the world, much less on the LAND OF ISRAEL, which is what the Mandate for Palestine was on, and what it was for.
RECREATING the ancient Nation of Israel for the indigenous people of the land, THE JEWS, ON the Ancient homeland of their ancestors.


You do know what the facts are. 
Now, be honest about them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The destruction of Palestine has always been Israel's goal and they have mooched enough equipment to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)  ISRAEL  IS  PALESTINE, therefore Israel wanting to destroy itself is all in your sad Christian head.  You really know how to invent things.
> 
> 2)  Again, for your frail mind......There NEVER,  EVER was an Arab country called Palestine ANYWHERE in the world, much less on the LAND OF ISRAEL, which is what the Mandate for Palestine was on, and what it was for.
> RECREATING the ancient Nation of Israel for the indigenous people of the land, THE JEWS, ON the Ancient homeland of their ancestors.
> 
> 
> You do know what the facts are.
> Now, be honest about them.
Click to expand...

More BS Israeli talking points.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The destruction of Palestine has always been Israel's goal and they have mooched enough equipment to do it.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
Click to expand...

So who is defending Palestine's oligarchs?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The destruction of Palestine has always been Israel's goal and they have mooched enough equipment to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who is defending Palestine's oligarchs?
Click to expand...

Keep showing your ignorance.

But you are really not ignorant, you just play one in real life.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The destruction of Palestine has always been Israel's goal and they have mooched enough equipment to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What, you made an allegation and you cannot back it up with a link to what you posted?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
Click to expand...


I was certain you would have no coherent response. 

Lets give you another chance. How has Israel, in the relatively brief span of its existence, managed to overcome the wars of aggression and attempted destruction waged by Arabs-Moslems while simultaneously developing a first world economy?

Why are so many of the neighboring Arab-Moslem nations little more than third world by comparison? 

Why are the islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza'istan and Fatah'istan unable to transform from welfare dependent, islamic terrorist misfits, begging at the hand of kuffar Western donors to viable political and economic entities?

Shirley, you can find a YouTube video?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(creation of Israel)*​
> The 51st State of the USA will be~~
> 
> For all practical purposes, Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.
> 
> What’s up?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is time for a national vote on this.
> 
> Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.
> 
> How do you vote-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was certain you would have no coherent response.
> 
> Lets give you another chance. How has Israel, in the relatively brief span of its existence, managed to overcome the wars of aggression and attempted destruction waged by Arabs-Moslems while simultaneously developing a first world economy?
> 
> Why are so many of the neighboring Arab-Moslem nations little more than third world by comparison?
> 
> Why are the islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza'istan and Fatah'istan unable to transform from welfare dependent, islamic terrorist misfits, begging at the hand of kuffar Western donors to viable political and economic entities?
> 
> Shirley, you can find a YouTube video?
Click to expand...

If you would get your face out of Israel's BS propaganda you would know.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  watchingfromafar, _et al,_
> 
> Oh come on, let's be reasonable.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a propaganda line used to provoke an emotion _(stir trouble)_ from people that don't understand what the representatives in Washington do, and how the annual budget process works.  In a very high percentage (≈ 90%) of the US annual budget is not voted-on by the general citizenry, but by the Senatorial and House Representatives.  In some cases, it is done by diplomatic arrangements, but the Senate still must approve the Foreign Agreements:
> 
> P.L. 115-141, the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides the following for Israel:
> • Congressional Research Service www.crs.gov RL33222 •
> 
> •  $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing, of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement;
> 
> •  $705.8 million for joint U.S. - Israeli missile defense projects, including $92million for Iron Dome, $221.5 million for David's Sling, $310 million for Arrow 3, and $82.3 million for Arrow 2;
> 
> •  $47.5 million for the U.S.-Israeli anti-tunnel cooperation program;
> 
> •  $7.5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance;
> 
> •  $4 million for the establishment of a U.S.-Israel Center of Excellence in energy and water technologies;
> 
> •  $2 million for the Israel-U.S. Binational Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) Energy program; and
> 
> •  The reauthorization of War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program through fiscal year 2019​Don't confuse the meaning of "Foreign Military Financing."  While some of is no the form of grants, some is in the form of loans.   and loans to help countries purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, this is done to maintain the “qualitative military edge” (QME) in the defensive combat ca[[abiities over potential enemies throughout the region.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't confuse "annual" FMS and the "cumulative" Defesne and Military Aid.  While you did quote the 2016 CRS on Relations and how the Israeli relations with Regional Arab issues --- impact the relationship with the US. That political data is about four-to-five years old; --- the CRS on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel_ (supra)_ puts a much more realistic view on the graeter issue of aid and some of the reasoning.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Israel is the *mooch* capital of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was certain you would have no coherent response.
> 
> Lets give you another chance. How has Israel, in the relatively brief span of its existence, managed to overcome the wars of aggression and attempted destruction waged by Arabs-Moslems while simultaneously developing a first world economy?
> 
> Why are so many of the neighboring Arab-Moslem nations little more than third world by comparison?
> 
> Why are the islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza'istan and Fatah'istan unable to transform from welfare dependent, islamic terrorist misfits, begging at the hand of kuffar Western donors to viable political and economic entities?
> 
> Shirley, you can find a YouTube video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you would get your face out of Israel's BS propaganda you would know.
Click to expand...

You want all of us to say no to facts and the truth and adopt your "let us destroy Israel because it is a sovereign Jewish State"  dogma.

Sorry, the toxic garbage you insist on spewing is of no use to us.


----------



## Slyhunter

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that's an ignorant comment relative to Israel developing a world class economy.
> 
> Indeed, perhaps you could compare for us the GDP of Israel vs. that of Gaza'istan. I'll even allow you to include the welfare fraud that sustains the Islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan.
> 
> I'll start here:  Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> 
> With what Israel has stolen and mooched, Haiti would be a prosperous country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take this derailing of the thread to the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.
> 
> After all, with what the PA and Hamas have been given or stolen from around the world, they could have had two very successful countries in Gaza and the PA territories.
> 
> If only they were about constructing a country  and not destroying Israel and historical non Muslim places in the area, they would have had one heck of a tourism industry.
> 
> Instead, all one has are very "fat" cats in the Hamas, Fatah, PLO leadership living the life they could not lead had they done things honestly and legally.
> 
> Cheating and killing others is what is known as hard work and success with some Muslim Arabs.
> 
> A practice going on all the way back to Mohammad himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The destruction of Palestine has always been Israel's goal and they have mooched enough equipment to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)  ISRAEL  IS  PALESTINE, therefore Israel wanting to destroy itself is all in your sad Christian head.  You really know how to invent things.
> 
> 2)  Again, for your frail mind......There NEVER,  EVER was an Arab country called Palestine ANYWHERE in the world, much less on the LAND OF ISRAEL, which is what the Mandate for Palestine was on, and what it was for.
> RECREATING the ancient Nation of Israel for the indigenous people of the land, THE JEWS, ON the Ancient homeland of their ancestors.
> 
> 
> You do know what the facts are.
> Now, be honest about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More BS Israeli talking points.
Click to expand...

Why because you disagree with them. It's you against the world.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are using this response more and more these days.  YOU have ME at a disadvantage.  You are not really pointing me to the "Talking Point Paper" published by the Israelis.



P F Tinmore said:


> More BS Israeli talking points.


*(COMMENT)*

I have searched the internet for "*Israeli Talking Points*" just to put context to your meaning.  But what I found was somewhat surprising...  I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.  What I found was people like Noura Erakat  _(Palestinian-American → Human Rights attorney → activist and writer, and self-proclaimed source → possessing detailed knowledge on the Arab-Israeli conflict)_ forming and shaping her own list of Talking Points and then having a one-sided argument and editorializing under the guise dispelling an Israeli Talking Point crafted by Arab Palestinians _(not Israelis)_.

You just say that there is a "Talking Point" but never cite it or source it back to the origin.

There are only ever been one issue consisting of three components _(if you want to call them "talking points") in_ the Arab-Israeli conflict:

ψ  Recognition that the Jews are a people with a rich culture,
ψ  Recognition of the historic and contemporary rights of the Jewish people in the the territory over which the Israelis maintain sovereignty _(and the Arab Palestinians do not)_,
ψ  Recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and territorial integrity.​
Everything else is merely various factual responses to actual events, grievances and complaints, and emotional outbursts provoked by a series of corrupt Arab Palestinian Leader.  And then you come along and suggest that a response is in connection to a specific "Talking Point" without a context.  _(More BS Israeli talking points.)_  There can be no real "Talking Point" if there was no platform in which to present them.

JPOST.COM STAFF February 16, 2016"
During the meeting, the French envoy presented the Foreign Ministry with details on a French initiative to convene a peace conference in Paris this coming summer, with the aim of relaunching the diplomatic process that last broke down in April 2014.

The meeting between the French and Israeli officials came the day after a senior *Palestinian Authority official rejected* the possibility of a return to the negotiating table.

On Monday during a visit to Japan, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the *Palestinians would never reengage* in direct talks with Israel.

*SOURCE: * Jerusalem Post Arab-Israeli Conflict
*Israel hears details of French p**eace initiative, slams Palestinian objection to talks *​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are using this response more and more these days.  YOU have ME at a disadvantage.  You are not really pointing me to the "Talking Point Paper" published by the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More BS Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> I have searched the internet for "*Israeli Talking Points*" just to put context to your meaning.  But what I found was somewhat surprising...  I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.  What I found was people like Noura Erakat  _(Palestinian-American → Human Rights attorney → activist and writer, and self-proclaimed source → possessing detailed knowledge on the Arab-Israeli conflict)_ forming and shaping her own list of Talking Points and then having a one-sided argument and editorializing under the guise dispelling an Israeli Talking Point crafted by Arab Palestinians _(not Israelis)_.
> 
> You just say that there is a "Talking Point" but never cite it or source it back to the origin.
> 
> There are only ever been one issue consisting of three components _(if you want to call them "talking points") in_ the Arab-Israeli conflict:
> 
> ψ  Recognition that the Jews are a people with a rich culture,
> ψ  Recognition of the historic and contemporary rights of the Jewish people in the the territory over which the Israelis maintain sovereignty _(and the Arab Palestinians do not)_,
> ψ  Recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and territorial integrity.​
> Everything else is merely various factual responses to actual events, grievances and complaints, and emotional outbursts provoked by a series of corrupt Arab Palestinian Leader.  And then you come along and suggest that a response is in connection to a specific "Talking Point" without a context.  _(More BS Israeli talking points.)_  There can be no real "Talking Point" if there was no platform in which to present them.
> 
> JPOST.COM STAFF February 16, 2016"
> During the meeting, the French envoy presented the Foreign Ministry with details on a French initiative to convene a peace conference in Paris this coming summer, with the aim of relaunching the diplomatic process that last broke down in April 2014.
> 
> The meeting between the French and Israeli officials came the day after a senior *Palestinian Authority official rejected* the possibility of a return to the negotiating table.
> 
> On Monday during a visit to Japan, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the *Palestinians would never reengage* in direct talks with Israel.
> 
> *SOURCE: * Jerusalem Post Arab-Israeli Conflict
> *Israel hears details of French p**eace initiative, slams Palestinian objection to talks *​Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.


"Israel has the right to defend itself." (occupying powers don't but that is a different discussion) Every politician, every pundit, And every talk show host say the same thing.

Hamas is never mentioned without the terrorist moniker.

This has to come from someplace.

Look at what Elizabeth Warren says.

*Elizabeth Warren’s Israel Position Surprises All, Especially Liberals*

**
How many times have we heard that? It is like she is reading the same script as everyone else.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are using this response more and more these days.  YOU have ME at a disadvantage.  You are not really pointing me to the "Talking Point Paper" published by the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More BS Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> I have searched the internet for "*Israeli Talking Points*" just to put context to your meaning.  But what I found was somewhat surprising...  I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.  What I found was people like Noura Erakat  _(Palestinian-American → Human Rights attorney → activist and writer, and self-proclaimed source → possessing detailed knowledge on the Arab-Israeli conflict)_ forming and shaping her own list of Talking Points and then having a one-sided argument and editorializing under the guise dispelling an Israeli Talking Point crafted by Arab Palestinians _(not Israelis)_.
> 
> You just say that there is a "Talking Point" but never cite it or source it back to the origin.
> 
> There are only ever been one issue consisting of three components _(if you want to call them "talking points") in_ the Arab-Israeli conflict:
> 
> ψ  Recognition that the Jews are a people with a rich culture,
> ψ  Recognition of the historic and contemporary rights of the Jewish people in the the territory over which the Israelis maintain sovereignty _(and the Arab Palestinians do not)_,
> ψ  Recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and territorial integrity.​
> Everything else is merely various factual responses to actual events, grievances and complaints, and emotional outbursts provoked by a series of corrupt Arab Palestinian Leader.  And then you come along and suggest that a response is in connection to a specific "Talking Point" without a context.  _(More BS Israeli talking points.)_  There can be no real "Talking Point" if there was no platform in which to present them.
> 
> JPOST.COM STAFF February 16, 2016"
> During the meeting, the French envoy presented the Foreign Ministry with details on a French initiative to convene a peace conference in Paris this coming summer, with the aim of relaunching the diplomatic process that last broke down in April 2014.
> 
> The meeting between the French and Israeli officials came the day after a senior *Palestinian Authority official rejected* the possibility of a return to the negotiating table.
> 
> On Monday during a visit to Japan, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the *Palestinians would never reengage* in direct talks with Israel.
> 
> *SOURCE: * Jerusalem Post Arab-Israeli Conflict
> *Israel hears details of French p**eace initiative, slams Palestinian objection to talks *​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Israel has the right to defend itself." (occupying powers don't but that is a different discussion) Every politician, every pundit, And every talk show host say the same thing.
> 
> Hamas is never mentioned without the terrorist moniker.
> 
> This has to come from someplace.
> 
> Look at what Elizabeth Warren says.
> 
> *Elizabeth Warren’s Israel Position Surprises All, Especially Liberals*
> 
> **
> How many times have we heard that? It is like she is reading the same script as everyone else.
Click to expand...


You delicate flower. Your feelings are hurt.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are using this response more and more these days.  YOU have ME at a disadvantage.  You are not really pointing me to the "Talking Point Paper" published by the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More BS Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> I have searched the internet for "*Israeli Talking Points*" just to put context to your meaning.  But what I found was somewhat surprising...  I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.  What I found was people like Noura Erakat  _(Palestinian-American → Human Rights attorney → activist and writer, and self-proclaimed source → possessing detailed knowledge on the Arab-Israeli conflict)_ forming and shaping her own list of Talking Points and then having a one-sided argument and editorializing under the guise dispelling an Israeli Talking Point crafted by Arab Palestinians _(not Israelis)_.
> 
> You just say that there is a "Talking Point" but never cite it or source it back to the origin.
> 
> There are only ever been one issue consisting of three components _(if you want to call them "talking points") in_ the Arab-Israeli conflict:
> 
> ψ  Recognition that the Jews are a people with a rich culture,
> ψ  Recognition of the historic and contemporary rights of the Jewish people in the the territory over which the Israelis maintain sovereignty _(and the Arab Palestinians do not)_,
> ψ  Recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and territorial integrity.​
> Everything else is merely various factual responses to actual events, grievances and complaints, and emotional outbursts provoked by a series of corrupt Arab Palestinian Leader.  And then you come along and suggest that a response is in connection to a specific "Talking Point" without a context.  _(More BS Israeli talking points.)_  There can be no real "Talking Point" if there was no platform in which to present them.
> 
> JPOST.COM STAFF February 16, 2016"
> During the meeting, the French envoy presented the Foreign Ministry with details on a French initiative to convene a peace conference in Paris this coming summer, with the aim of relaunching the diplomatic process that last broke down in April 2014.
> 
> The meeting between the French and Israeli officials came the day after a senior *Palestinian Authority official rejected* the possibility of a return to the negotiating table.
> 
> On Monday during a visit to Japan, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the *Palestinians would never reengage* in direct talks with Israel.
> 
> *SOURCE: * Jerusalem Post Arab-Israeli Conflict
> *Israel hears details of French p**eace initiative, slams Palestinian objection to talks *​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Israel has the right to defend itself." (occupying powers don't but that is a different discussion) Every politician, every pundit, And every talk show host say the same thing.
> 
> Hamas is never mentioned without the terrorist moniker.
> 
> This has to come from someplace.
> 
> Look at what Elizabeth Warren says.
> 
> *Elizabeth Warren’s Israel Position Surprises All, Especially Liberals*
> 
> **
> How many times have we heard that? It is like she is reading the same script as everyone else.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are telling us that......the indigenous people of the Land of Israel (you prefer to call it Palestine) do not have the right to build a military and do not have any right to defend their borders from the Muslim invaders who have been occupying their lands for the past 1400 years.

Hamas IS a terrorist group.  I know they are your heroes and liberators (possibly from what you believe is YOUR land, even if you keep telling us that you are a Christian - an Arab perhaps.  Never mind    .

Yes, there are a few Democrats who, gratefully, see what is going on in the Gaza border and what Hamas is all about and they do happen to be on the side of Human rights, instead of the right to destroy a sovereign country only because it is the one the Jewish people have.

So, NO, she is not "reading" a script.  She is actually seeing what have been going on, what the Hamas charter is, what they keep telling that they want to do with Israel (destroy and kill all Jews, etc ).


The question continues to be:

When are you going to see those things, or if you do see them.....when are you going to own up to them?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are using this response more and more these days.  YOU have ME at a disadvantage.  You are not really pointing me to the "Talking Point Paper" published by the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More BS Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> I have searched the internet for "*Israeli Talking Points*" just to put context to your meaning.  But what I found was somewhat surprising...  I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.  What I found was people like Noura Erakat  _(Palestinian-American → Human Rights attorney → activist and writer, and self-proclaimed source → possessing detailed knowledge on the Arab-Israeli conflict)_ forming and shaping her own list of Talking Points and then having a one-sided argument and editorializing under the guise dispelling an Israeli Talking Point crafted by Arab Palestinians _(not Israelis)_.
> 
> You just say that there is a "Talking Point" but never cite it or source it back to the origin.
> 
> There are only ever been one issue consisting of three components _(if you want to call them "talking points") in_ the Arab-Israeli conflict:
> 
> ψ  Recognition that the Jews are a people with a rich culture,
> ψ  Recognition of the historic and contemporary rights of the Jewish people in the the territory over which the Israelis maintain sovereignty _(and the Arab Palestinians do not)_,
> ψ  Recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and territorial integrity.​
> Everything else is merely various factual responses to actual events, grievances and complaints, and emotional outbursts provoked by a series of corrupt Arab Palestinian Leader.  And then you come along and suggest that a response is in connection to a specific "Talking Point" without a context.  _(More BS Israeli talking points.)_  There can be no real "Talking Point" if there was no platform in which to present them.
> 
> JPOST.COM STAFF February 16, 2016"
> During the meeting, the French envoy presented the Foreign Ministry with details on a French initiative to convene a peace conference in Paris this coming summer, with the aim of relaunching the diplomatic process that last broke down in April 2014.
> 
> The meeting between the French and Israeli officials came the day after a senior *Palestinian Authority official rejected* the possibility of a return to the negotiating table.
> 
> On Monday during a visit to Japan, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the *Palestinians would never reengage* in direct talks with Israel.
> 
> *SOURCE: * Jerusalem Post Arab-Israeli Conflict
> *Israel hears details of French p**eace initiative, slams Palestinian objection to talks *​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Israel has the right to defend itself." (occupying powers don't but that is a different discussion) Every politician, every pundit, And every talk show host say the same thing.
> 
> Hamas is never mentioned without the terrorist moniker.
> 
> This has to come from someplace.
> 
> Look at what Elizabeth Warren says.
> 
> *Elizabeth Warren’s Israel Position Surprises All, Especially Liberals*
> 
> **
> How many times have we heard that? It is like she is reading the same script as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you are telling us that......the indigenous people of the Land of Israel (you prefer to call it Palestine) do not have the right to build a military and do not have any right to defend their borders from the Muslim invaders who have been occupying their lands for the past 1400 years.
> 
> Hamas IS a terrorist group.  I know they are your heroes and liberators (possibly from what you believe is YOUR land, even if you keep telling us that you are a Christian - an Arab perhaps.  Never mind    .
> 
> Yes, there are a few Democrats who, gratefully, see what is going on in the Gaza border and what Hamas is all about and they do happen to be on the side of Human rights, instead of the right to destroy a sovereign country only because it is the one the Jewish people have.
> 
> So, NO, she is not "reading" a script.  She is actually seeing what have been going on, what the Hamas charter is, what they keep telling that they want to do with Israel (destroy and kill all Jews, etc ).
> 
> 
> The question continues to be:
> 
> When are you going to see those things, or if you do see them.....when are you going to own up to them?
Click to expand...

Don't ask me to own up to your fantasies.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are using this response more and more these days.  YOU have ME at a disadvantage.  You are not really pointing me to the "Talking Point Paper" published by the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More BS Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> I have searched the internet for "*Israeli Talking Points*" just to put context to your meaning.  But what I found was somewhat surprising...  I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.  What I found was people like Noura Erakat  _(Palestinian-American → Human Rights attorney → activist and writer, and self-proclaimed source → possessing detailed knowledge on the Arab-Israeli conflict)_ forming and shaping her own list of Talking Points and then having a one-sided argument and editorializing under the guise dispelling an Israeli Talking Point crafted by Arab Palestinians _(not Israelis)_.
> 
> You just say that there is a "Talking Point" but never cite it or source it back to the origin.
> 
> There are only ever been one issue consisting of three components _(if you want to call them "talking points") in_ the Arab-Israeli conflict:
> 
> ψ  Recognition that the Jews are a people with a rich culture,
> ψ  Recognition of the historic and contemporary rights of the Jewish people in the the territory over which the Israelis maintain sovereignty _(and the Arab Palestinians do not)_,
> ψ  Recognition of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and territorial integrity.​
> Everything else is merely various factual responses to actual events, grievances and complaints, and emotional outbursts provoked by a series of corrupt Arab Palestinian Leader.  And then you come along and suggest that a response is in connection to a specific "Talking Point" without a context.  _(More BS Israeli talking points.)_  There can be no real "Talking Point" if there was no platform in which to present them.
> 
> JPOST.COM STAFF February 16, 2016"
> During the meeting, the French envoy presented the Foreign Ministry with details on a French initiative to convene a peace conference in Paris this coming summer, with the aim of relaunching the diplomatic process that last broke down in April 2014.
> 
> The meeting between the French and Israeli officials came the day after a senior *Palestinian Authority official rejected* the possibility of a return to the negotiating table.
> 
> On Monday during a visit to Japan, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the *Palestinians would never reengage* in direct talks with Israel.
> 
> *SOURCE: * Jerusalem Post Arab-Israeli Conflict
> *Israel hears details of French p**eace initiative, slams Palestinian objection to talks *​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot find where the Israeli Government published it talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Israel has the right to defend itself." (occupying powers don't but that is a different discussion) Every politician, every pundit, And every talk show host say the same thing.
> 
> Hamas is never mentioned without the terrorist moniker.
> 
> This has to come from someplace.
> 
> Look at what Elizabeth Warren says.
> 
> *Elizabeth Warren’s Israel Position Surprises All, Especially Liberals*
> 
> **
> How many times have we heard that? It is like she is reading the same script as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you are telling us that......the indigenous people of the Land of Israel (you prefer to call it Palestine) do not have the right to build a military and do not have any right to defend their borders from the Muslim invaders who have been occupying their lands for the past 1400 years.
> 
> Hamas IS a terrorist group.  I know they are your heroes and liberators (possibly from what you believe is YOUR land, even if you keep telling us that you are a Christian - an Arab perhaps.  Never mind    .
> 
> Yes, there are a few Democrats who, gratefully, see what is going on in the Gaza border and what Hamas is all about and they do happen to be on the side of Human rights, instead of the right to destroy a sovereign country only because it is the one the Jewish people have.
> 
> So, NO, she is not "reading" a script.  She is actually seeing what have been going on, what the Hamas charter is, what they keep telling that they want to do with Israel (destroy and kill all Jews, etc ).
> 
> 
> The question continues to be:
> 
> When are you going to see those things, or if you do see them.....when are you going to own up to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't ask me to own up to your fantasies.
Click to expand...

We have a reality  =  Israel

You and the Muslim/Christian Jew haters have a fantasy =  Israel does not exist or needs to be destroyed.


Keep it up Hamas groupie


----------



## RoccoR

;RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

Here you are talking nonsense and disseminating misinformation (again).



P F Tinmore said:


> "Israel has the right to defend itself." (occupying powers don't but that is a different discussion) Every politician, every pundit, And every talk show host say the same thing.


*(COMMENT)*

This is pure misinformation.  The "occupying power" has the right and duty to enforce law and order _(Article 43 of the Hague Regulation)_; and the right to punish the those responsible for crimes against the Occupying Power _(Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hamas is never mentioned without the terrorist moniker.
> This has to come from someplace.


*(COMMENT)*

Both the US and the EU have declared HAMAS as a Terrorist Group.  That designation was upheld by the 
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017.

It is what it is.  The application of the designation is perfectly acceptable and utterly correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> Look at what Elizabeth Warren says.
> How many times have we heard that? It is like she is reading the same script as everyone else.


*(COMMENT)*

This is an anti-Warren and anti-Israeli video piece.  Each of the panelists knows perfectly well that the real-world is not perfect.  And they each know very (VERY) well that:



			
				ICRC Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities said:
			
		

> However, it remains legally accepted that, in the harsh reality of war, civilian persons and objects may be incidentally affected by an attack directed at a legitimate military objective. Euphemistically referred to as ‘‘collateral casualties’’ or ‘‘collateral damage,’’ civilians may be victims of mistaken target identification or of unintended but inevitable side effects of an attack on a legitimate target in their vicinity. According to the principle of proportionality, these collateral casualties and damages are lawful under treaty and the customary law only if they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
> *Source:* J-F. Que´guiner → International Review of the Red Cross – Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities (page 794) and See:  Posting #31 --- The Israeli military does not target civilians' - video




These are just a few examples at how the Pro-Palestinian movement attempt to twist the words on these topics in order to make an audience believe that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are the victims of some sort of criminal umbrella _(the emotional sympathy vote)_.  Just as it is a piece that is aiding and abetting Arab Palestinian organizations like HAMAS in the furtherance of terrorist activities and causes.

*(One Further Point)*

This panel of experts must also know (from there vast experience, that the Gaza Border Protesters are a mixture of both *Category 1: Voluntary shields who are DPH (i.e., lawful targets); *and *Category 2: Voluntary shields who are not DPH (i.e., not lawful targets).  *That makes the undisciplined mob a complex environment that may not be readily defined. This becomes a damned if you do and damned if you don't.  In the case of the  border mob, the fire balloon and kit launchers are are Cat #1 DPH; but mixed in which Cat #2 DPH.  This is an undefined condition intentionally designed to create the Illusion of Hostile Arab Palestinians in the role of victims; “utilizing the presence of Cat #2 DPH to render location of launch points,  immune from immune from IDF interdiction.”  This then shifts to a Rule 97 violation in conjunction with violations of Rules 23 and 24. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> "Watchingfromafar" is one of the many birds who like to fly over to these threads and spread some religion and other nonsense which haver nothing to do with the threads per se.



_The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate_

The tread title contains; “the creation of Israel” which makes my posts relevant to the subject.

Palestine was flooded with Jews just after WW2 because no country wanted them in their country and as a result the indigenous Palestinians have suffered the consequences. If the Israeli’s had their way they would wipe out the Palestinian population. The only thing stopping them now from engaging in this genocide is the UN watching and NATO.

If they had chosen to call their new-found country by any other name the biblical connection couldn’t be made; but they instead chose to call their new country “Israel” which makes it relevant to use biblical references to the existence of Israel.

I am not going to cry over spilt milk, what was done is done. Now I feel they need to be held accountable, biblically because of the name they chose to call their new country and accountable in their actions since becoming a country.

If people don’t like to hear the truth about their beloved country they can do as Trump does and just lie and call the evidence I present “fake news”. This seems to work for trump so why not you too.

In my opinion Israel should never have been recognized as a country or allowed into the UN.

The Truth Will Set You free






Look--- no I_srael could be found_


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> they do happen to be on the side of Human rights, instead of the right to destroy a sovereign country only because it is the one the Jewish people have.



You are getting of script, either Israel is a secular country or a racist one; i.e. we be better than all others kinda country. Being the "only" Jewish "country" is a racists statement on its face, 

*No animosity intended or implied*


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> The tread title contains; “the creation of Israel” which makes my posts relevant to the subject.



Oops.  Our bad.  Should have said the RE-CREATION of Israel.


----------



## Slyhunter

To be against Israel is to be against God. 
I'm Agnostic so let me say it a different way.
To be against Israel is to be against everyone who believe in God.
That's a lot of people.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Slyhunter said:


> To be against Israel is to be against everyone who believe in God.



At one point in my life I would have agreed with you. But after reading the following------
[1] Hagana, Irgun and Stern gangs who threw bombs into buses, assassinated British and other officials and murdered Palestinians way before the Palestinians retaliated in kind. (what goes around comes around)

[2] IDF snipers picking out and shooting “children” in cold blood.

[3] Entire Palestinian villages whipped out, men, women and children and then building illegal settlements on top of the rubble.

https://rense.com//general21/pastzionist.htm

If this doesn’t sicken you then you are part of the problem.

But don’t just reject or accept what I have posted.

Google “Israel shooting children”

Google “Israel illegal settlements”

Once done, come back and try to defend what you saw/read------


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be against Israel is to be against everyone who believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At one point in my life I would have agreed with you. But after reading the following------
> [1] Hagana, Irgun and Stern gangs who threw bombs into buses, assassinated British and other officials and murdered Palestinians way before the Palestinians retaliated in kind. (what goes around comes around)
> 
> [2] IDF snipers picking out and shooting “children” in cold blood.
> 
> [3] Entire Palestinian villages whipped out, men, women and children and then building illegal settlements on top of the rubble.
> 
> https://rense.com//general21/pastzionist.htm
> 
> If this doesn’t sicken you then you are part of the problem.
> 
> But don’t just reject or accept what I have posted.
> 
> Google “Israel shooting children”
> 
> Google “Israel illegal settlements”
> 
> Once done, come back and try to defend what you saw/read------
Click to expand...


I think the problem you share with a few others is copying and pasting from one of the most notorious internet tabloids and then proceeding on with the attitude, _“well, I dun’ seen it on the inter web so it must be true”
_
You can choose to be a gullible.


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Watchingfromafar" is one of the many birds who like to fly over to these threads and spread some religion and other nonsense which haver nothing to do with the threads per se.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate_
> 
> The tread title contains; “the creation of Israel” which makes my posts relevant to the subject.
> 
> Palestine was flooded with Jews just after WW2 because no country wanted them in their country and as a result the indigenous Palestinians have suffered the consequences. If the Israeli’s had their way they would wipe out the Palestinian population. The only thing stopping them now from engaging in this genocide is the UN watching and NATO.
> 
> If they had chosen to call their new-found country by any other name the biblical connection couldn’t be made; but they instead chose to call their new country “Israel” which makes it relevant to use biblical references to the existence of Israel.
> 
> I am not going to cry over spilt milk, what was done is done. Now I feel they need to be held accountable, biblically because of the name they chose to call their new country and accountable in their actions since becoming a country.
> 
> If people don’t like to hear the truth about their beloved country they can do as Trump does and just lie and call the evidence I present “fake news”. This seems to work for trump so why not you too.
> 
> In my opinion Israel should never have been recognized as a country or allowed into the UN.
> 
> The Truth Will Set You free
> 
> View attachment 202787
> 
> Look--- no I_srael could be found_
Click to expand...



“I am not going to cry over spilt milk, ....”

Oh, but you are crying, and agonizing and obsessing.

The Truth Will Cause You Angst.


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can choose to be a gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google "IDF shooting children"
> 
> Nov 23, 2004 - Radio exchange contradicts army version of Gaza killing.
> *Israel 'killed 25 Palestinian children' in three months | News | Al Jazeera*
> 
> www.aljazeera.com/.../israel-killed-25-palestinian-children-months-16051414083314...
> 
> May 14, 2016 - UNICEF warns of excessive use of force, particularly in relation to incidents where Palestinian children were shot dead. ... the example on October 25 in Hebron in the West Bank of a 17-year-old girl who was "taken by IDF (Israel Defence Forces) soldiers for a search, shot with at least five bullets and killed".
> *2016 'deadliest year' for West Bank children in decade | News | Al ...*
> www.aljazeera.com/.../2016-deadliest-year-west-bank-children-decade-17010314502...
> 
> May 14, 2016 - UNICEF cited the example on October 25 in Hebron in the West Bank of a 17-year-old girl who was "taken by IDF (Israel Defence Forces) soldiers for a search, shot with at least five bullets and killed". "Israeli authorities said that she had attempted to stab a policeman, however an eyewitness stated that she ...
> *Israeli shoots dead Palestinian after group of children comes under ...*
> Israeli shoots dead Palestinian after group of children comes under attack
> 
> *12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD* in front of your eyes
> Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
> A 12 Year old Boy Shot Dead in front of YOUR Eyes
> 
> *Gaza girl said killed*
> By Amos Harel and Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondents,
> and Haaretz Service
> Thu., October 28, 2004
> *IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl* who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
> *http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html*
> 
> * UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza*
> By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and AP
> Tue., October 12, 2004 Tishrei 27, 5765
> *An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach* and critically wounded *by Israel Defense Forces gunfire*. IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit  a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a *10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.*
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html
> 
> United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 7 September 2004 At 07:45 *10-year old Raghda Adnan Al-Assar was struck in the head* by Israeli fire while sitting at her desk in UNRWA's Elementary
> 
> Girl's School On June 1 this year *two ten-year old children* in UNRWA's
> Al-Umariye Elementary Boys' School  in Rafah were hit by a bullet from a Israeli tank
> 
> In March 2003
> *12-year old Hoda Darwish was hit in the head* by a bullet fired *Two 10 year-old schoolchildren* were shot in the al-Omaria school run by UNRWA in Rafah, when an *Israeli tank fired into their classroom.*
> Bullets fired from the tank flew through the classroom window, hitting Mahmoud Hamad in the neck and Hisham al Habil in the head. The boys had not even been sitting by the windows but in the middle of the room. (this was an assassination of specific children by the IDF)
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/index.html
> 
> Photos of a *12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers *and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
> http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/
> 
> * Three-year-old *Rawan Abu Zeid, who *took bullets in the neck and head while buying candy with her friends.*
> 5 June 2004
> The New Yorker’s Israel: Where Objectivity Fails
> 
> *An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead* by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
> Lend me your swords
> 
> *Boy of 17, shot by Israeli soldiers, left bleeding overnight to die*
> September 8, 2003
> The bullet ridden corpse of Mohammad Abdullah Abu al-Husni, was found yesterday morning near the town of Jabaliya, where he lived in Gaza.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/left_to_die.htm
> 
> Haneen, who was *eight years old, had been shot twice in the head* by an Israeli soldier as she walked down the street in Khan Yunis refugee camp with her mother.
> 
> 28 July 2003
> She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying,
> 'Mother, mother'. *Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other*.
> *She was still in my arms and she died."*​'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'
> 
> *This boy* was in his own house and an IDF soldier barges into the house and *shoots him dead Mohammed a 7-year-old boy  fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.*
> Tuesday December 23, 2003
> Israel Army action breeds fresh hatred
> 
> * Israel Baby is born then dies*
> September 11, 2003
> Birth and death at the checkpoint
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338937.html
> 
> * Three shot in the back by Israeli snipers, one a 15-year-old boy*
> Siege off Nablus
> January, 2004
> *15 year old boy who was shot while standing in front of his house.* The* sniper bulet hit Amjad in the back.*  He died on his way to the hospital. The *second is  Amer Kathym Arafat who was also shot* in the *back by a sniper bullet*. The *third is Rouhi Hazem Shouman, 25, who was also shot in the* back by a sniper.
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm
> 
> You can choose to be a gullible.
Click to expand...


Yes, that’s a lot of cutting and pasting and not surprisingly, you ducked any accountability for your gullibility while cutting and pasting from internet tabloids. 

Why don’t you give us some specific details on one or more of the articles you cut and pasted so we can have some context as opposed to cut and paste snippets of articles you carefully culled from the web. 

The Twoof Is Not What Cut And Paste Groupies Cut And Paste From Internet Tabloids.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> Why don’t you give us some specific details on one or more of the articles you cut and pasted so we can have some context



*FIRST ACTS OF TERRORISM, COINING THE PHRASE*
*JUST FOLLOW THE BLUE COLOR*​
November 6, 1944. *Zionist terrorists* of the Stern Gang *assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.*

 July 22, 1946. *Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem,.,.,killing or injuring more than 200 persons.  *

October 1, 1946. The *British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions*, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

September 3, 1947. *A postal bomb* addressed to the British War Office *exploded in the post office sorting room in London*, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa*; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 19, 1947. *Haganah terrorists* attacked an Arab village near Safad, *blowing up two houses* in the ruins of which were *found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children*. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. *Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others*, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses.  *Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others*.

December 29, 1947. *Two British constables* and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*

June 1947. *Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.*

December ll, 1947. *Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded* when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa* ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 29, 1947. *Two British constables* and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*

January 4, 1948. *Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms* penetrated into the center of Jaffa and *blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House*) *killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.*

January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis *Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons*.

January 7, 1948. *Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb* at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the *murder of a British officer* near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

January 16, 1948. *Zionists blew up three Arab buildings*. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, *killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children.*

March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa by Zionists who drove an* army lorry* ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the *detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives*; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured.

March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the *Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles* before the explosion.

March 31, 1948. The *Cairo-Haifa Express was mined*, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.

April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and *killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children.* Older men and young women were paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.

April 16, 1948. *Zionists attacked the former British army camp* at Tel Litvinsky,* killing 90 Arabs there. *

April 19, 1948. *Fourteen Arabs were killed* in a house in Tiberias, *which was blown up by Zionist terrorists. *

May 3, 1948. *A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer*, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May11, 1948. *A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker*, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

April 25, 1948 -- May 13, 1948. *Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried* out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. *They stripped and carried away everything they could*, destroying what they could not take with them.

Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, has confirmed that the *Israeli art students* were, in fact, part of *a major Israeli intelligence operation* and that they were *conducting surveillance of the activities of the 9-11 hijackers*. They also worked with the Israeli Urban Moving System employees in New Jersey *who were seen* in at least two Jersey City locations -- Liberty State Park and The Doric apartment building -- *celebrating the impact of the first plane into the World Trade Center.
*
The Israelis at Liberty State Park *were dressed in Arab-style clothing* wh*en they were witnessed celebrating the first attack.* The FBI later confiscated a videotape they filmed of the first attack.
*Israeli art students who shadowed 9-11 hijackers were part of a major Mossad intelligence operation - Looking Glass News*


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> Why don’t you give us some specific details on one or more of the articles you cut and pasted so we can have some context



Links were included


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don’t you give us some specific details on one or more of the articles you cut and pasted so we can have some context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FIRST ACTS OF TERRORISM, COINING THE PHRASE*
> *JUST FOLLOW THE BLUE COLOR*​
> November 6, 1944. *Zionist terrorists* of the Stern Gang *assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.*
> 
> July 22, 1946. *Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem,.,.,killing or injuring more than 200 persons.  *
> 
> October 1, 1946. The *British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions*, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.
> 
> September 3, 1947. *A postal bomb* addressed to the British War Office *exploded in the post office sorting room in London*, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)
> 
> December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa*; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.
> 
> December 19, 1947. *Haganah terrorists* attacked an Arab village near Safad, *blowing up two houses* in the ruins of which were *found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children*. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.
> 
> December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. *Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others*, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses.  *Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others*.
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables* and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*
> 
> June 1947. *Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.*
> 
> December ll, 1947. *Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded* when *bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa* ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.
> 
> December 29, 1947. *Two British constables* and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem *when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.*
> 
> January 4, 1948. *Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms* penetrated into the center of Jaffa and *blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House*) *killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.*
> 
> January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis *Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons*.
> 
> January 7, 1948. *Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb* at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the *murder of a British officer* near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.
> 
> January 16, 1948. *Zionists blew up three Arab buildings*. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.
> 
> February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, *killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children.*
> 
> March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa by Zionists who drove an* army lorry* ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the *detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives*; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured.
> 
> March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the *Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles* before the explosion.
> 
> March 31, 1948. The *Cairo-Haifa Express was mined*, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.
> 
> April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and *killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children.* Older men and young women were paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.
> 
> April 16, 1948. *Zionists attacked the former British army camp* at Tel Litvinsky,* killing 90 Arabs there. *
> 
> April 19, 1948. *Fourteen Arabs were killed* in a house in Tiberias, *which was blown up by Zionist terrorists. *
> 
> May 3, 1948. *A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer*, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.
> 
> May11, 1948. *A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker*, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.
> 
> April 25, 1948 -- May 13, 1948. *Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried* out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. *They stripped and carried away everything they could*, destroying what they could not take with them.
> 
> Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, has confirmed that the *Israeli art students* were, in fact, part of *a major Israeli intelligence operation* and that they were *conducting surveillance of the activities of the 9-11 hijackers*. They also worked with the Israeli Urban Moving System employees in New Jersey *who were seen* in at least two Jersey City locations -- Liberty State Park and The Doric apartment building -- *celebrating the impact of the first plane into the World Trade Center.
> *
> The Israelis at Liberty State Park *were dressed in Arab-style clothing* wh*en they were witnessed celebrating the first attack.* The FBI later confiscated a videotape they filmed of the first attack.
> *Israeli art students who shadowed 9-11 hijackers were part of a major Mossad intelligence operation - Looking Glass News*
Click to expand...


It appears you simply cut and pasted from the internet tabloid you cut and pasted from earlier. 


It was only a matter of time before the silly 9-11 conspiracy theories made an appearance.

There’s an entire forum dedicated to you twoofers.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> It appears you simply cut and pasted from the internet tabloid you cut and pasted from earlier.



By not addressing the articles themselves but instead you chastise me instead proves you have nothing of substance to offer. 
Having said that I like you so I will stick around as one friend to another and offer what support I can to help you along the path to truth


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you simply cut and pasted from the internet tabloid you cut and pasted from earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By not addressing the articles themselves but instead you chastise me instead proves you have nothing of substance to offer.
> Having said that I like you so I will stick around as one friend to another and offer what support I can to help you along the path to truth
Click to expand...


Your cut and paste article from Rense was from an unidentified author without a single citation. 

Your cutting and pasting is completely off topic so if you’re going to stick around, cut and paste something related to this thread.


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> By not addressing the articles themselves but instead you chastise me instead proves you have nothing of substance to offer.
> Having said that I like you so I will stick around as one friend to another and offer what support I can to help you along the path to truth



It is not your intent to discuss any of these articles or events.  You are posting them in order to demonize Israel and Israel alone, without recognition or acknowledgement of events committed by Arabs during the conflict.  Paired with your silly insistence that Israel never historically existed, it paints a clear picture of toxic and unreasonable hatred of Jews.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Posters that can't stick to the history up to the creation of the State of Israel will be ejected. This thread was started by moderation to CONFINE the topic in that manner. Anything after 1950 or so will be deleted or warned or the member thread banned. 

If you want to discuss OTHER time frames -- create the thread or find one to continue under. *


----------



## Slyhunter

watchingfromafar said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be against Israel is to be against everyone who believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At one point in my life I would have agreed with you. But after reading the following------
> [1] Hagana, Irgun and Stern gangs who threw bombs into buses, assassinated British and other officials and murdered Palestinians way before the Palestinians retaliated in kind. (what goes around comes around)
> 
> [2] IDF snipers picking out and shooting “children” in cold blood.
> 
> [3] Entire Palestinian villages whipped out, men, women and children and then building illegal settlements on top of the rubble.
> 
> https://rense.com//general21/pastzionist.htm
> 
> If this doesn’t sicken you then you are part of the problem.
> 
> But don’t just reject or accept what I have posted.
> 
> Google “Israel shooting children”
> 
> Google “Israel illegal settlements”
> 
> Once done, come back and try to defend what you saw/read------
Click to expand...

Google is a Liberal anti-Israel source.
Where are the Palestinians building permits? Where are the Palestinians Title of Ownerships? They are the illegal settlers on Israels land.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Slyhunter said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be against Israel is to be against everyone who believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At one point in my life I would have agreed with you. But after reading the following------
> [1] Hagana, Irgun and Stern gangs who threw bombs into buses, assassinated British and other officials and murdered Palestinians way before the Palestinians retaliated in kind. (what goes around comes around)
> 
> [2] IDF snipers picking out and shooting “children” in cold blood.
> 
> [3] Entire Palestinian villages whipped out, men, women and children and then building illegal settlements on top of the rubble.
> 
> https://rense.com//general21/pastzionist.htm
> 
> If this doesn’t sicken you then you are part of the problem.
> 
> But don’t just reject or accept what I have posted.
> 
> Google “Israel shooting children”
> 
> Google “Israel illegal settlements”
> 
> Once done, come back and try to defend what you saw/read------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google is a Liberal anti-Israel source.
> Where are the Palestinians building permits? Where are the Palestinians Title of Ownerships? They are the illegal settlers on Israels land.
Click to expand...

Please get back to topic.


----------



## Slyhunter

Sixties Fan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be against Israel is to be against everyone who believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At one point in my life I would have agreed with you. But after reading the following------
> [1] Hagana, Irgun and Stern gangs who threw bombs into buses, assassinated British and other officials and murdered Palestinians way before the Palestinians retaliated in kind. (what goes around comes around)
> 
> [2] IDF snipers picking out and shooting “children” in cold blood.
> 
> [3] Entire Palestinian villages whipped out, men, women and children and then building illegal settlements on top of the rubble.
> 
> https://rense.com//general21/pastzionist.htm
> 
> If this doesn’t sicken you then you are part of the problem.
> 
> But don’t just reject or accept what I have posted.
> 
> Google “Israel shooting children”
> 
> Google “Israel illegal settlements”
> 
> Once done, come back and try to defend what you saw/read------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google is a Liberal anti-Israel source.
> Where are the Palestinians building permits? Where are the Palestinians Title of Ownerships? They are the illegal settlers on Israels land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please get back to topic.
Click to expand...

Israeli's were given the land a long time before there were Palestinians to contest it.


----------



## Sixties Fan

And THAT is not the topic of this thread.

Please stay on topic, thank you.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Slyhunter said:


> Israeli's were given the land a long time before there were Palestinians to contest it.



That just isn't true. At least biblical scripture disagrees with your view----- You are welcome to prove me wrong, that is if you can--

(Gen 41:39 KJV) _And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:_

(Gen 41:40 KJV) _Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou._

(Gen 41:42 KJV) _And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck;_

(Gen 41:44 KJV) _And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt._

Gen 41:46 KJV) _And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh King of Egypt. And Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh, and went throughout all the land of Egypt._

Joseph who is now the de facto ruler over all of Egypt saves the Israelites who are experiencing a great famine and moves them to Egypt and gives them power over all the agriculture lands. Clearly they were not slaves as some would have believed.

(Gen 42:1 KJV) _Now when Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, Jacob said unto his sons, why do ye look one upon another?_

(Gen 42:2 KJV) _And he said, Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt: get you down thither, and buy for us from thence;_

(Gen 42:5 KJV) _And the sons of *Israel *came to buy corn among those that came: for the famine was in the land of Canaan._

(Gen 42:25 KJV) _Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man's money into his sack, and to give them provision for the way:_

(Gen 45:20 KJV) _Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours._

See above, they abandon the land of Canaan and move to Egypt

(Gen 45:21 KJV) _And the children of Israel did so: and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way._

(Gen 47:1 KJV) _Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen._

(Gen 47:3 KJV) _And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh, Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers._

(Gen 47:4 KJV) _They said moreover unto Pharaoh, For to sojourn in the land are we come; for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks; for the famine is sore in the land of Canaan: now therefore, we pray thee, let thy servants dwell in the land of Goshen._

(Gen 47:5 KJV) _And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father [ISRAEL] and thy brethren are come unto thee:_

(Gen 47:6 KJV) _The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle._

(Gen 47:11 KJV) _And Joseph placed his father [ISRAEL] and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded._

Please, Slayhunter--; prove me wrong


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> *Posters that can't stick to the history up to the creation of the State of Israel will be ejected. This thread was started by moderation to CONFINE the topic in that manner. Anything after 1950 or so will be deleted or warned or the member thread banned.
> 
> If you want to discuss OTHER time frames -- create the thread or find one to continue under. *


What about things like ethnic cleansing, colonialism, and apartheid that started before 1948 and continue today?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> And THAT is not the topic of this thread.



Forgive me, before seeing your post I made the post above that is not on topic as well.

It will not happen again


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Posters that can't stick to the history up to the creation of the State of Israel will be ejected. This thread was started by moderation to CONFINE the topic in that manner. Anything after 1950 or so will be deleted or warned or the member thread banned.
> 
> If you want to discuss OTHER time frames -- create the thread or find one to continue under. *
> 
> 
> 
> What about things like ethnic cleansing, colonialism, and apartheid that started before 1948 and continue today?
Click to expand...

This discussion is about Israel, not the Arab world.


----------



## Slyhunter

Sixties Fan said:


> And THAT is not the topic of this thread.
> 
> Please stay on topic, thank you.


Anything prior to 1950 concerning the creation of Israel is fair game. You aint a fucking moderator stop acting like one.


----------



## Indeependent

watchingfromafar said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli's were given the land a long time before there were Palestinians to contest it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just isn't true. At least biblical scripture disagrees with your view----- You are welcome to prove me wrong, that is if you can--
> 
> (Gen 41:39 KJV) _And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:_
> 
> (Gen 41:40 KJV) _Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou._
> 
> (Gen 41:42 KJV) _And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck;_
> 
> (Gen 41:44 KJV) _And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt._
> 
> Gen 41:46 KJV) _And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh King of Egypt. And Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh, and went throughout all the land of Egypt._
> 
> Joseph who is now the de facto ruler over all of Egypt saves the Israelites who are experiencing a great famine and moves them to Egypt and gives them power over all the agriculture lands. Clearly they were not slaves as some would have believed.
> 
> (Gen 42:1 KJV) _Now when Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, Jacob said unto his sons, why do ye look one upon another?_
> 
> (Gen 42:2 KJV) _And he said, Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt: get you down thither, and buy for us from thence;_
> 
> (Gen 42:5 KJV) _And the sons of *Israel *came to buy corn among those that came: for the famine was in the land of Canaan._
> 
> (Gen 42:25 KJV) _Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man's money into his sack, and to give them provision for the way:_
> 
> (Gen 45:20 KJV) _Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours._
> 
> See above, they abandon the land of Canaan and move to Egypt
> 
> (Gen 45:21 KJV) _And the children of Israel did so: and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way._
> 
> (Gen 47:1 KJV) _Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen._
> 
> (Gen 47:3 KJV) _And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh, Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers._
> 
> (Gen 47:4 KJV) _They said moreover unto Pharaoh, For to sojourn in the land are we come; for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks; for the famine is sore in the land of Canaan: now therefore, we pray thee, let thy servants dwell in the land of Goshen._
> 
> (Gen 47:5 KJV) _And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father [ISRAEL] and thy brethren are come unto thee:_
> 
> (Gen 47:6 KJV) _The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle._
> 
> (Gen 47:11 KJV) _And Joseph placed his father [ISRAEL] and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded._
> 
> Please, Slayhunter--; prove me wrong
Click to expand...

That's a lot of stuff out of context.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Slyhunter said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is not the topic of this thread.
> 
> Please stay on topic, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything prior to 1950 concerning the creation of Israel is fair game. You aint a fucking moderator stop acting like one.
Click to expand...

*The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate*

Let me know when the topic includes anything before the Mandate for Palestine came to be and 1948 or 1950, as you did in your previous post.

You may have missed it, but the moderators asked all of us to keep on the topic and therefore, any one of us reminding those who are not aware of it, or do not care for it, is exactly what I was doing and will continue to do.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Noga Kadman - Erased from Space and Consciousness*

**


----------



## Slyhunter

Sixties Fan said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is not the topic of this thread.
> 
> Please stay on topic, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything prior to 1950 concerning the creation of Israel is fair game. You aint a fucking moderator stop acting like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate*
> 
> Let me know when the topic includes anything before the Mandate for Palestine came to be and 1948 or 1950, as you did in your previous post.
> 
> You may have missed it, but the moderators asked all of us to keep on the topic and therefore, any one of us reminding those who are not aware of it, or do not care for it, is exactly what I was doing and will continue to do.
Click to expand...

You remind me of the nerd who thinks he's substituting for the teacher whenever she's not around.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Noga Kadman - Erased from Space and Consciousness*
> 
> **



That's quiet interesting that in her opening statement she confirms that "Palestinians" in Arab countries are not a distinct different ethnic group. She then goes on using the word "Palestinian" to refer exclusively to* Arabs. *

What's more interesting is that her mother was a Palestinian Jew for 68 years before the re-establishment of Israel.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> Let me know when the topic includes anything before the Mandate



In order to "mandate" the creation of Israel it would require a review of Israel's past history. That "history" is open to debate to justify the mandate.

This makes Israel's "history" reliant.


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when the topic includes anything before the Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to "mandate" the creation of Israel it would require a review of Israel's past history. That "history" is open to debate to justify the mandate.
> 
> This makes Israel's "history" reliant.
Click to expand...


Not true.  And, if you were judging all peoples equally, it would be easy enough to see why.  Discuss the history of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.  Then compare with the re-constitution of the nation of Israel.


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when the topic includes anything before the Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to "mandate" the creation of Israel it would require a review of Israel's past history. That "history" is open to debate to justify the mandate.
> 
> This makes Israel's "history" reliant.
Click to expand...


What's up to debate, 3500 continuous years of Jewish presence in their land,
or the fact that Arabs themselves call this land the _"Jewish desert"?_


----------



## watchingfromafar

Shusha said:


> Then compare with the re-constitution of the nation of Israel.



There was never-ever a nation of Israel prior to 1947ad. so please face reality, you cannot re-constitute something that never existed before. Where ever you were born is your homeland not the land of ooz which only exists in children's imaginations.

in short, grow up


----------



## watchingfromafar

rylah said:


> What's up to debate, 3500 continuous years of Jewish presence in their land,



They never had a homeland. This is a fact so stop lying to yourself.

*I have my proof--- rylah, where is yours?
*​_Is the land of “Israel” their true ancient homeland?_

_*Promised Land*
“Moses went up Mount Nebo to the top of Pisgah, looked over the *promised land of Israel* spread out before him, and died, at the age of one hundred and twenty, according to Talmudic legend on 7 Adar, his 120th birthday exactly._

_Moab is the historical name for a mountainous strip of land in modern-day _*Jordan *_running along the eastern shore of the _*Dead Sea. *_In ancient times, it was home to the kingdom of the Moabites, a people often in conflict with their Israelite neighbors to the west._

_The Moabites were a historical people, whose existence is attested to by numerous archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over an unnamed son of King_ _Omri of Israel. Their capital was _*Dibon, *_located next to the modern Jordanian town of _*Dhiban.*_”
Moab - New World Encyclopedia_

From there they moved to Egypt

(Gen 42:25 KJV)  _Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man's money into his sack, and to give them provision for the way:_

(Gen 45:20 KJV) _ *Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.*_

(Gen 45:21 KJV)  _*And the children of Israel did so*: and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way._

(Gen 47:1 KJV)  _*Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.*_

(Gen 47:3 KJV)  _And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, *What is your occupation?* And they said unto Pharaoh, *Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.
*_
Again I ask--I have my proof--- *rylah**, *where is yours?​


----------



## Slyhunter

watchingfromafar said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then compare with the re-constitution of the nation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never-ever a nation of Israel prior to 1947ad. so please face reality, you cannot re-constitute something that never existed before. Where ever you were born is your homeland not the land of ooz which only exists in children's imaginations.
> 
> in short, grow up
Click to expand...

Was too. You are ignoring the Israelites.


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then compare with the re-constitution of the nation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was never-ever a nation of Israel prior to 1947ad. so please face reality, you cannot re-constitute something that never existed before. Where ever you were born is your homeland not the land of ooz which only exists in children's imaginations.
> 
> in short, grow up
Click to expand...


You missed my point.  There was never a nation of Iraq.  Or Syria.  Or Jordan.  Or Lebanon.  If these nations can exist, nothing prohibits Israel from existing, except antisemitism like yours which applies different rules to people if they are culturally Jewish.

That said, there is AMPLE historical evidence of a nation and continued presence a specific and culturally distinct Jewish people going back, unbroken, for 3500 years.  So the term, "re-constituted" is accurate.  There is a clear and undeniable historical connection of the Jewish people to that specific territory.  And no amount of "growing up" is going to destroy that historical evidence.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  watchingfromafar,  et al,

We should stop this foolishness.



watchingfromafar said:


> Again I ask--I have my proof--- *rylah**, *where is yours?​


*(COMMENT)*

The discussion revolves around three pivotal points:

✪  The UN did not create the State of Israel.  The UN recommended a process called the "Steps Preparatory to Independence.

•  The Jewish Agency opted in.

•  The Arab Higher Committee opted out.​
✪  The State of Israel was created when the "National Council for the Jewish State:" 

•  Applied to the United Nations Palestine Commission (UNPC), the successor government following the termination of the British Mandate, for the recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government.  

•  This action was done in accordance with the recommendations made by the UN Special Committee for  Palestine that were approved by the General Assembly.​
✪  The Mandate for Palestine only tasked the Mandatory Government of Palestine to set the conditions for the:

•  Provisions *designed to apply* the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration."

•  Intention to *encourage the establishment* in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

•  For *reconstituting their national home* the Mandatory Government would encorage *Jewish immigration* under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, AND encourage *close settlement* by Jews on the land.​
 For the contemporary period _(the State of Israel that was created in 1948)_ nothing else really matters.  No ancient claim or ancient history makes any difference other than the knowledge that in 1920, the Allied Powers made a historical connection, between the Jews and the region in question, which influenced their decision _(to what degree is unknown other than it was significant enough to mention)_. 

Whatever there was about the decision-making process to criticise today, the decision was made nearly a century ago.  And since that time, the Arab Palestinians have argued the point with the League of Nations, the Allied Powers _(individually and collectively)_, the various commissions, and the Jewish Agency and later the Israeli Government.  Both through talks and combat, the Hostile Arab community have lost politically and militarily; with adverse consequences for Arab Palestinians to face.  

No matter how you slice it, the ground truth and reality seen today in the region, and the reorientation of the territorial demarcations, are a direct result of the Hostile Arab Palestinian attempting to take territorial control over which they have never had sovereignty at any time from the end of the Ottoman Empire (1918) to the Armistice Arangements (1949).  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

watchingfromafar said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing prohibits Israel from existing, except antisemitism like yours which applies different rules to people if they are culturally Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel exists today. I believe that because you can find a nation called "Israel" on a map. But you cannot find a map showing an ancient "Israel"; period.
> 
> And calling me an antisemitic proves you have no proof to provide so you result to calling me names instead.
> 
> That is, my friend a third graders response on an adult's forum.
> 
> Look, I even went to the trouble to find you a forum that fits your needs.
> Virtual Teen Forums
> 
> Only because I consider you a friend who needs to find a place where you belong
> 
> You don't even have to thank me
Click to expand...

MAP of ancient ISrael

Ancient Israel


No, we do not have to thank you at all.  Not now, not ever.

A Jew hater like you who decides to deny the existence of Ancient Israel and its history  =  A Jew Hater denialist


And again  NO Thanks, Thank you but.....NO


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing prohibits Israel from existing, except antisemitism like yours which applies different rules to people if they are culturally Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel exists today. I believe that because you can find a nation called "Israel" on a map. But you cannot find a map showing an ancient "Israel"; period.
> 
> And calling me an antisemitic proves you have no proof to provide so you result to calling me names instead.
> 
> That is, my friend a third graders response on an adult's forum.
> 
> Look, I even went to the trouble to find you a forum that fits your needs.
> Virtual Teen Forums
> 
> Only because I consider you a friend who needs to find a place where you belong
> 
> You don't even have to thank me
Click to expand...


On the contrary, the "proof" of adulting would be to discuss the content of posts within the constructs of the thread guidelines and topic.

This topic is the creation of the modern State of Israel and the legal documents and instruments which led to that outcome.  if your only point is to claim that Israel did not exist at anytime in history prior to that moment -- you are on the wrong thread, not I.  

I think, rather, and please correct me if I am mistaken, that you are trying to claim that SINCE Israel did not exist prior to its re-formation in 1948 THEREFORE it has no right to exist.  This is problematic BECAUSE it applies rules to Israel which you do not apply to dozens of other States which also did not exist prior to their modern formation.  I have yet to discover an individual who applied different rules to Israel and the Jewish people who was NOT antisemitic and whose reasons for the different applications are not fundamentally rooted in antisemitism.  And I can not even conceive of an argument where a defined group has different rules applied to it which would not be, at its core, discriminatory against that group.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sixties Fan said:


> A Jew hater like you



bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla,bla, bla, bla,



Sixties Fan said:


> who decides to deny the existence of Ancient Israel and its history = A Jew Hater denialist



I looked at your map----- Syria, Damasce, The Tribs of Dan Devider and images of buildings denoting towns of the time; but no “Israel”, no “Zion” or anything else that denoted a Jewish land.

Sorry put I looked at the map. There was nothing there to support your view.

Note: If you load the map and want to magnify it to look closer, just hold down your [Ctrl] key while rolling your mouse up or down


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> Having said that, I still reserve the right to judge them on their behavior once they became a country in the modern sense.
> 
> Since the beginning of their new-found state they have-----
> 
> [1] assassinated foreign leaders
> 
> [2] used bombs to blow up busses and people in crowds
> 
> [3] murdered man women and children i.e. entire Palestinian villages and then bulldozed the villages to the ground and then built illegal settlements on top of them
> 
> [4] IDF snipers shooting Palestinian children while sitting at their UN sponsored classroom desks or walking down the street
> 
> In my view that above actions and many others should disqualify them of statehood.




We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics.  This is not the appropriate thread.  I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.  

I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel.  Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines.  There is no process by which this can occur.  The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm.  I wonder what such a thing would look like?  I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"?  To whom should it apply?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Shusha said:


> I think, rather, and please correct me if I am mistaken, that you are trying to claim that SINCE Israel did not exist prior to its re-formation in 1948 THEREFORE it has no right to exist.



I can understand that you see it that was. In some regards I was wrong about the recognition of “Israel” in the 1940’s. The past is irrelevant to this discussion, Israel does exist and rightfully so.

As to the things the Israeli’s have done since then is not an issue that belongs in this thread.

Having said that I leave you to your discussion.


----------



## watchingfromafar

watchingfromafar said:


> In my view that above actions and many others should disqualify them of statehood.



I correct that statement. They cannot be “disqualified” from statehood but sanctions could be placed on them until they treat the Palestinians as one of their own. And if possible, assuming some of the original Palestinians survived after their villages were destroyed the land is returned to the Palestinians. Correction: the land should be returned; period.

And the name "Israel" changed to "Palestine"

I am sure other reasons and conditions could be implemented in some form of “sanctions”.

To begin with the USA could stop giving them $billions in US tax dollars


----------



## Shusha

watchingfromafar said:


> I correct that statement. They cannot be “disqualified” from statehood but sanctions could be placed on them until they treat the Palestinians as one of their own. And if possible, assuming some of the original Palestinians survived after their villages were destroyed the land is returned to the Palestinians. Correction: the land should be returned; period.



Please elaborate what you mean by "the land should be returned", presumably to the "Palestinians".  

What do you mean by that?  What would that look like?  Would there be Jewish self-determination?


----------



## rylah

watchingfromafar said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's up to debate, 3500 continuous years of Jewish presence in their land,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never had a homeland. This is a fact so stop lying to yourself.
> 
> *I have my proof--- rylah, where is yours?
> *​_Is the land of “Israel” their true ancient homeland?_
> 
> _*Promised Land*
> “Moses went up Mount Nebo to the top of Pisgah, looked over the *promised land of Israel* spread out before him, and died, at the age of one hundred and twenty, according to Talmudic legend on 7 Adar, his 120th birthday exactly._
> 
> _Moab is the historical name for a mountainous strip of land in modern-day _*Jordan *_running along the eastern shore of the _*Dead Sea. *_In ancient times, it was home to the kingdom of the Moabites, a people often in conflict with their Israelite neighbors to the west._
> 
> _The Moabites were a historical people, whose existence is attested to by numerous archeological findings, most notably the Mesha Stele, which describes the Moabite victory over an unnamed son of King_ _Omri of Israel. Their capital was _*Dibon, *_located next to the modern Jordanian town of _*Dhiban.*_”
> Moab - New World Encyclopedia_
> 
> From there they moved to Egypt
> 
> (Gen 42:25 KJV)  _Then Joseph commanded to fill their sacks with corn, and to restore every man's money into his sack, and to give them provision for the way:_
> 
> (Gen 45:20 KJV) _ *Also regard not your stuff; for the good of all the land of Egypt is yours.*_
> 
> (Gen 45:21 KJV)  _*And the children of Israel did so*: and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way._
> 
> (Gen 47:1 KJV)  _*Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father [ISRAEL] and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.*_
> 
> (Gen 47:3 KJV)  _And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, *What is your occupation?* And they said unto Pharaoh, *Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers.
> *_
> Again I ask--I have my proof--- *rylah**, *where is yours?​
Click to expand...

It's pretty funny how You use verses from the Bible to prove Israel didn't exist as a nation, kinda self defeating in the first place. Don't You think?

The proof is in the pudding - the nations recognized the territory under the mandate as the historical Jewish Homeland.

Beyond that, the Judean desert is still called so until this day even by Arabs, for a reason, should I explain this _"on fingers"_ for You?


----------



## Shusha

rylah said:


> It's pretty funny how You use verses from the Bible to prove Israel didn't exist as a nation, kinda self defeating in the first place. Don't You think?



Thank you.  Pretty funny to be using an historical, ancient, cultural document specific to the Jewish people and to that territory and written in Hebrew as proof that that specific culture did not exist in that place and at that time.


----------



## rylah

Shusha said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty funny how You use verses from the Bible to prove Israel didn't exist as a nation, kinda self defeating in the first place. Don't You think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Pretty funny to be using an historical, ancient, cultural document specific to the Jewish people and to that territory and written in Hebrew as proof that that specific culture did not exist in that place and at that time.
Click to expand...


I'd even go as far as claiming that not one archeological finding about peoples of pre - Roman era in this land, can be confirmed without the history written in the Jewish Bible.

In most cases archeologists go to the Torah in the 1st place, to even slightly understand what they've found, and who it talks about. There's simply no other extensive source (on that level) about the history, and people in this land.


----------



## Shusha

rylah said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty funny how You use verses from the Bible to prove Israel didn't exist as a nation, kinda self defeating in the first place. Don't You think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Pretty funny to be using an historical, ancient, cultural document specific to the Jewish people and to that territory and written in Hebrew as proof that that specific culture did not exist in that place and at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd even go as far as claiming that not one archeological finding about peoples of pre - Roman era in this land, can be confirmed without the history written in the Jewish Bible.
> 
> In most cases archeologists go to the Torah in the 1st place, to even slightly understand what they've found, and who it talks about. There's simply no other extensive source (on that level) about the history, and people in this land.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Torah is a beautifully preserved  and consistent secondary source which gives us a great deal of insight into an ancient culture.  (As well as, obviously, sacred guidance for those of faith). There are very few cultures as ancient as the Jewish culture with this abundance of source material.  Which, of course, makes it all the more ridiculous when people argue about "existence".


----------



## rylah

Shusha said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty funny how You use verses from the Bible to prove Israel didn't exist as a nation, kinda self defeating in the first place. Don't You think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  Pretty funny to be using an historical, ancient, cultural document specific to the Jewish people and to that territory and written in Hebrew as proof that that specific culture did not exist in that place and at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd even go as far as claiming that not one archeological finding about peoples of pre - Roman era in this land, can be confirmed without the history written in the Jewish Bible.
> 
> In most cases archeologists go to the Torah in the 1st place, to even slightly understand what they've found, and who it talks about. There's simply no other extensive source (on that level) about the history, and people in this land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Torah is a beautifully preserved  and consistent secondary source which gives us a great deal of insight into an ancient culture.  (As well as, obviously, sacred guidance for those of faith). There are very few cultures as ancient as the Jewish culture with this abundance of source material.  Which, of course, makes it all the more ridiculous when people argue about "existence".
Click to expand...


And that's before we even mention the Gmarah. 
One interesting  point, and this might be a bit off topic, is that the first commentary by Rashi (lived a 1000 years before modern Israel) talks about the future international accusation towards Israel, that they're are supposedly "land thieves", and what has to be specifically answered in this regard. 

Ben Gurion was not far off when he mentioned the Torah as our historical tabo.
He wasn't laughed off, because this is at the heart of many nations' own heritage and identity.
Brits till this day coronate their monarchs on a special throne, at the base of which is a stone, they claim to be the pillar of Jacob.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I still reserve the right to judge them on their behavior once they became a country in the modern sense.
> 
> Since the beginning of their new-found state they have-----
> 
> [1] assassinated foreign leaders
> 
> [2] used bombs to blow up busses and people in crowds
> 
> [3] murdered man women and children i.e. entire Palestinian villages and then bulldozed the villages to the ground and then built illegal settlements on top of them
> 
> [4] IDF snipers shooting Palestinian children while sitting at their UN sponsored classroom desks or walking down the street
> 
> In my view that above actions and many others should disqualify them of statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics.  This is not the appropriate thread.  I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.
> 
> I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel.  Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines.  There is no process by which this can occur.  The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm.  I wonder what such a thing would look like?  I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"?  To whom should it apply?
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?


Good questions.

There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.

UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.

So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I still reserve the right to judge them on their behavior once they became a country in the modern sense.
> 
> Since the beginning of their new-found state they have-----
> 
> [1] assassinated foreign leaders
> 
> [2] used bombs to blow up busses and people in crowds
> 
> [3] murdered man women and children i.e. entire Palestinian villages and then bulldozed the villages to the ground and then built illegal settlements on top of them
> 
> [4] IDF snipers shooting Palestinian children while sitting at their UN sponsored classroom desks or walking down the street
> 
> In my view that above actions and many others should disqualify them of statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics.  This is not the appropriate thread.  I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.
> 
> I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel.  Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines.  There is no process by which this can occur.  The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm.  I wonder what such a thing would look like?  I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"?  To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.
> 
> UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
Click to expand...


Are You done with fiction?
That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.

That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?



Current international law?  You can't.  And no one.  Best remember that when discussing Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current international law?  You can't.  And no one.  Best remember that when discussing Israel.
Click to expand...

The question was how was Palestine removed?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I still reserve the right to judge them on their behavior once they became a country in the modern sense.
> 
> Since the beginning of their new-found state they have-----
> 
> [1] assassinated foreign leaders
> 
> [2] used bombs to blow up busses and people in crowds
> 
> [3] murdered man women and children i.e. entire Palestinian villages and then bulldozed the villages to the ground and then built illegal settlements on top of them
> 
> [4] IDF snipers shooting Palestinian children while sitting at their UN sponsored classroom desks or walking down the street
> 
> In my view that above actions and many others should disqualify them of statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics.  This is not the appropriate thread.  I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.
> 
> I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel.  Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines.  There is no process by which this can occur.  The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm.  I wonder what such a thing would look like?  I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"?  To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.
> 
> UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are You done with fiction?
> That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
> There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.
> 
> That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.
Click to expand...

Nice deflection.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore, Shusha, rylah, _et al,_

This is a question of fantasy and illusion.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current international law?  You can't.  And no one.  Best remember that when discussing Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was how was Palestine removed?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The question presupposes that there existed an independent and autonomous → self-governing nation called Palestine that lost its statehood.  That is simply not the case.

BUT to answer the original question as to:

■  How do you remove statehood?  _[This should be (to be more politically estute) how is statehood altered, chnaged or dissolved?]  _As an example: 

_ψ  _By Matt Rosenberg Updated January 22, 2018  
*History of the Former Country of Yugoslavia*
_ With the fall of the Austria-Hungary empire at the end of World War I, the victors threw together a new country which was composed of more than twenty ethnic groups -- Yugoslavia. Just over seventy years later that piecemeal nation disintegrated and war broke out between seven new states._

_Following Marshal Tito's death in 1980, factions in Yugoslavia became agitated and demanded more autonomy. It was the fall of the USSR in 1991 that finally broke up the jigsaw puzzle of a state. About 250,000 were killed by wars and "ethnic cleansing" in the new countries of the former Yugoslavia (FRY)._

Today, the FRY once consisted of the new contries of:

Serbia
Montenegro
Kosovo
Solvenia
Macedonia
Boznia and Herzegovina
■  Who has that authority? _ (This question presupposes that there is an authority and protocol instrument for such a question of statehood.)_

_ψ  _The territorial evolution of regional entities can occur either peacefully or through other than peaceful means.  It can be the outcome of an internal conflict (revolution), a military victory FRY out of the fall of the Austria-Hungarian Empire from the Great War, or a politicial settlement _(1995, Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia signed a peace agreement)_, of as in the peaceful act of self-determination by the Solevians.​
Remember in the case of the Government of Palestine, the Government formally consisted of High Commissioner, and an all British staff.  While the Jewish Agency did provide input to the Office of the High Commissioners, the Arab Higher Committee rejected all invitations to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, Shusha, rylah, _et al,_
> 
> This is a question of fantasy and illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current international law?  You can't.  And no one.  Best remember that when discussing Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was how was Palestine removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question presupposes that there existed an independent and autonomous → self-governing nation called Palestine that lost its statehood.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> BUT to answer the original question as to:
> 
> ■  How do you remove statehood?  _[This should be (to be more politically estute) how is statehood altered, chnaged or dissolved?]  _As an example:
> 
> _ψ  _By Matt Rosenberg Updated January 22, 2018
> *History of the Former Country of Yugoslavia*
> _ With the fall of the Austria-Hungary empire at the end of World War I, the victors threw together a new country which was composed of more than twenty ethnic groups -- Yugoslavia. Just over seventy years later that piecemeal nation disintegrated and war broke out between seven new states._
> 
> _Following Marshal Tito's death in 1980, factions in Yugoslavia became agitated and demanded more autonomy. It was the fall of the USSR in 1991 that finally broke up the jigsaw puzzle of a state. About 250,000 were killed by wars and "ethnic cleansing" in the new countries of the former Yugoslavia (FRY)._
> 
> Today, the FRY once consisted of the new contries of:
> 
> Serbia
> Montenegro
> Kosovo
> Solvenia
> Macedonia
> Boznia and Herzegovina
> ■  Who has that authority? _ (This question presupposes that there is an authority and protocol instrument for such a question of statehood.)_
> 
> _ψ  _The territorial evolution of regional entities can occur either peacefully or through other than peaceful means.  It can be the outcome of an internal conflict (revolution), a military victory FRY out of the fall of the Austria-Hungarian Empire from the Great War, or a politicial settlement _(1995, Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia signed a peace agreement)_, of as in the peaceful act of self-determination by the Solevians.​
> Remember in the case of the Government of Palestine, the Government formally consisted of High Commissioner, and an all British staff.  While the Jewish Agency did provide input to the Office of the High Commissioners, the Arab Higher Committee rejected all invitations to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The question presupposes that there existed an independent and autonomous → self-governing nation called Palestine that lost its statehood. That is simply not the case.


This pantload again?

Self governance is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, Shusha, rylah, _et al,_
> 
> This is a question of fantasy and illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current international law?  You can't.  And no one.  Best remember that when discussing Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was how was Palestine removed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question presupposes that there existed an independent and autonomous → self-governing nation called Palestine that lost its statehood.  That is simply not the case.
> 
> BUT to answer the original question as to:
> 
> ■  How do you remove statehood?  _[This should be (to be more politically estute) how is statehood altered, chnaged or dissolved?]  _As an example:
> 
> _ψ  _By Matt Rosenberg Updated January 22, 2018
> *History of the Former Country of Yugoslavia*
> _ With the fall of the Austria-Hungary empire at the end of World War I, the victors threw together a new country which was composed of more than twenty ethnic groups -- Yugoslavia. Just over seventy years later that piecemeal nation disintegrated and war broke out between seven new states._
> 
> _Following Marshal Tito's death in 1980, factions in Yugoslavia became agitated and demanded more autonomy. It was the fall of the USSR in 1991 that finally broke up the jigsaw puzzle of a state. About 250,000 were killed by wars and "ethnic cleansing" in the new countries of the former Yugoslavia (FRY)._
> 
> Today, the FRY once consisted of the new contries of:
> 
> Serbia
> Montenegro
> Kosovo
> Solvenia
> Macedonia
> Boznia and Herzegovina
> ■  Who has that authority? _ (This question presupposes that there is an authority and protocol instrument for such a question of statehood.)_
> 
> _ψ  _The territorial evolution of regional entities can occur either peacefully or through other than peaceful means.  It can be the outcome of an internal conflict (revolution), a military victory FRY out of the fall of the Austria-Hungarian Empire from the Great War, or a politicial settlement _(1995, Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia signed a peace agreement)_, of as in the peaceful act of self-determination by the Solevians.​
> Remember in the case of the Government of Palestine, the Government formally consisted of High Commissioner, and an all British staff.  While the Jewish Agency did provide input to the Office of the High Commissioners, the Arab Higher Committee rejected all invitations to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question presupposes that there existed an independent and autonomous → self-governing nation called Palestine that lost its statehood. That is simply not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This pantload again?
> 
> Self governance is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite.
Click to expand...


Another of your silly one-liners.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I still reserve the right to judge them on their behavior once they became a country in the modern sense.
> 
> Since the beginning of their new-found state they have-----
> 
> [1] assassinated foreign leaders
> 
> [2] used bombs to blow up busses and people in crowds
> 
> [3] murdered man women and children i.e. entire Palestinian villages and then bulldozed the villages to the ground and then built illegal settlements on top of them
> 
> [4] IDF snipers shooting Palestinian children while sitting at their UN sponsored classroom desks or walking down the street
> 
> In my view that above actions and many others should disqualify them of statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics.  This is not the appropriate thread.  I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.
> 
> I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel.  Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines.  There is no process by which this can occur.  The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm.  I wonder what such a thing would look like?  I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"?  To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.
> 
> UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are You done with fiction?
> That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
> There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.
> 
> That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection.
Click to expand...


9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.


----------



## Hollie

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I still reserve the right to judge them on their behavior once they became a country in the modern sense.
> 
> Since the beginning of their new-found state they have-----
> 
> [1] assassinated foreign leaders
> 
> [2] used bombs to blow up busses and people in crowds
> 
> [3] murdered man women and children i.e. entire Palestinian villages and then bulldozed the villages to the ground and then built illegal settlements on top of them
> 
> [4] IDF snipers shooting Palestinian children while sitting at their UN sponsored classroom desks or walking down the street
> 
> In my view that above actions and many others should disqualify them of statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics.  This is not the appropriate thread.  I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.
> 
> I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel.  Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines.  There is no process by which this can occur.  The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm.  I wonder what such a thing would look like?  I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"?  To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.
> 
> UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are You done with fiction?
> That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
> There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.
> 
> That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.
Click to expand...


It’s only a matter of time before he will cut and paste his “Treaty of Lausanne created the Country of Pal’istan™️”, routine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Self governance is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite.



But governance is a prerequisite for Statehood.


----------



## Sixties Fan

When FDR wanted to silence the Jews


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I still reserve the right to judge them on their behavior once they became a country in the modern sense.
> 
> Since the beginning of their new-found state they have-----
> 
> [1] assassinated foreign leaders
> 
> [2] used bombs to blow up busses and people in crowds
> 
> [3] murdered man women and children i.e. entire Palestinian villages and then bulldozed the villages to the ground and then built illegal settlements on top of them
> 
> [4] IDF snipers shooting Palestinian children while sitting at their UN sponsored classroom desks or walking down the street
> 
> In my view that above actions and many others should disqualify them of statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics.  This is not the appropriate thread.  I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.
> 
> I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel.  Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines.  There is no process by which this can occur.  The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm.  I wonder what such a thing would look like?  I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"?  To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.
> 
> UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are You done with fiction?
> That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
> There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.
> 
> That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.
Click to expand...

It is you who has never proven your point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self governance is the product of self determination, not a prerequisite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But governance is a prerequisite for Statehood.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> We welcome reasoned discussion on any or all of the above topics.  This is not the appropriate thread.  I would suggest you find a thread (or start one) and ask some specific questions about specific events.
> 
> I do find your comments about disqualifiactions from statehood to be interesting, though I think its rather more a removal of statehood, than a disqualification or prevent of forming statehood at this point, with respect to Israel.  Current international legal standards do not have a "removal of statehood" option based on moral principles or guidelines.  There is no process by which this can occur.  The assumption of an absolute right to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity is the norm.  I wonder what such a thing would look like?  I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"?  To whom should it apply?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how one would achieve this "removal of statehood"? To whom should it apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.
> 
> UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are You done with fiction?
> That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
> There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.
> 
> That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is you who has never proven your point.
Click to expand...

I've brought up documented international law.
You bring up slogans.

We can go in circles like that and You'll still have nothing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good questions.
> 
> There is a lot of documented evidence that Palestine was a state since 1924 including a trade agreement with the US in 1932. Palestinian leaders declared Palestine's independence, on is own territory that was defined by international borders in 1948. On the other hand, Israel never had a defined territory. Several times the UN has recognized the existence of Palestine and its international borders.
> 
> UN membership is not a defining factor. Switzerland did not become a member in the UN until 2004. Nobody said it was not a state before then.
> 
> So how do you remove statehood? Who has that authority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are You done with fiction?
> That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
> There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.
> 
> That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is you who has never proven your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've brought up documented international law.
> You bring up slogans.
> 
> We can go in circles like that and You'll still have nothing.
Click to expand...

You bring up Israeli say so but no proof.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I don't understand what land treaty are You looking for, between Jews and Israel?
> 
> That's not what H.Grief presents, basically I think he summed it up in the end:
> Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:
> *tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WW!
> *tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed  sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:
> 
> *San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*
> 
> *It was agreed –*
> 
> *(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
> 
> *(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter)  which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.
> 
> Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those attacks happened after the Zionist invasion.
Click to expand...


Arabs systematically attacked Palestinian Jews before and during the mandate time.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are You done with fiction?
> That Palestine You're talking about is the Jewish National Home, aka Israel.
> There's no part in that land over which the Jewish Nation wasn't vested with sovereignty.
> 
> That Israel has even considered allowing any other state inside it's territory is an act of great generosity.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 9 years, and still can't refute this very simple point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is you who has never proven your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've brought up documented international law.
> You bring up slogans.
> 
> We can go in circles like that and You'll still have nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You bring up Israeli say so but no proof.
Click to expand...

*Sovereignty was transferred to the Jewish nation over all of Palestine in 2 steps:*
*tire 1* - From the defeated Central Powers to the Principled Allied Powers at the end of WWI
*tire 2 *- At the San Remo conference that sovereignty was then devolved to each national beneficiaries of the Mandates. Palestine was a class A Mandate together with Iraq and Syria.

The sovereignty was vested with the Jewish people from April 24 1920 at San Remo Conference, combined with art.22 of the League of Nations the two together formed sovereignty over Palestine, and that was given to the Jewish nation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Remo incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:

*San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*

*It was agreed –*

*(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

*(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

San Remo Convention - Palestine Mandate - 1920


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.



Foreign States are certainly not, we agree.  But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign States are certainly not, we agree.  But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?
Click to expand...

The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign States are certainly not, we agree.  But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.
Click to expand...


Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
Israel fulfilled it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:
> 
> *San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*
> 
> *It was agreed –*
> 
> *(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
> 
> *(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter)  which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.
> 
> Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those attacks happened after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs systematically attacked Palestinian Jews before and during the mandate time.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Palestinians resisted the Zionist colonial project from the start.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign States are certainly not, we agree.  But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
> Israel fulfilled it.
Click to expand...

The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the part where it incorporates the Balfour Declaration, and converts it into a binding act of international law:
> 
> *San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920*
> 
> *It was agreed –*
> 
> *(a)* To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the procès-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
> 
> *(b)* that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the rights of Jews to live in Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, all of Judea and Samaria, and the Jewish Quarter (mark the name of the Quarter)  which were forcefully surrendered by the Jews by many attacks from 1920 to 1948.
> 
> Your "indeed" is beyond meaningless when faced with what actually happened between those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of those attacks happened after the Zionist invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs systematically attacked Palestinian Jews before and during the mandate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians resisted the Zionist colonial project from the start.
Click to expand...


Palestinians were pioneers of Zionism, they supported and coordinated the Zionist project on the ground.


----------



## gtopa1

> Conclusions and Recommendations
> 65.
> After having considered the terms of reference set out in the Commission's
> mandate, and in light of what we have heard, as well as the considerable amount of
> material that has been presen
> ted to us by a wide range of bodies, our conclusions and
> recommendations are as follows:
> Our basic conclusion is that from the point of view of international law, the
> classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 74
> conventions canno
> t be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis
> historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria
> spanning over decades.
> In addition, the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, regarding
> transfer of populations,
> cannot be considered applicable
> ,
> and were never
> intended to apply to the type of settlement activity carried out by Israel in
> Judea and Samaria.
> Therefore and according to international law, Israelis have the lawful right to
> settle in Judea and Samaria, an
> d consequently, and the establishment of
> settlements cannot in and of itself be considered to be illegal
> .
> With regard to the other issues considered, our recommendations are as follows:
> First, the Government is advised to elucidate its policy regarding set
> tlement by
> Israelis in Judea and Samaria, with a view to preventing future mistaken or
> “creative” interpretations of its decisions. We propose that its decision include the
> following principles:
> a.
> Any new settlement in Judea and Samaria will be established o
> nly following a
> decision by the government or by a duly empowered ministerial committee.
> b.
> Construction within the bounds of an existing or future settlement will not
> require government or ministerial decision, but such construction must be
> approved by the
> planning and zoning authorities after they have ascertained that
> the proposed construction is not contrary to the approved town
> -
> planning scheme
> applicable to the land in question.
> c.
> Extension of an existing settlement beyond the area of its jurisdiction or b
> eyond
> the area set out in the existing town
> -
> planning scheme will require a decision by
> the Minister of Defense with the knowledge of the Prime Minister, prior to any
> of the following stages: commencement of planning and commencement of
> actual construction.
> Second, with regard to settlements established in Judea and Samaria on state lands or
> on land purchased by Israelis with the assistance of official authorities such as the
> World Zionist Organization Settlement Division and the Ministry of Housing, and
> whi
> ch have been defined as "unauthorized" or "illegal" due to the fact that they were
> established without any formal government decision, our conclusion is that the
> establishment of such settlements was carried out with the knowledge,
> encouragement and tacit
> agreement of the most senior political level
> –
> government
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 75
> ministers and the Prime Minister, and therefore such conduct is to be seen as implied
> agreement.
> Regarding these settlements, as well as those established pursuant to a government
> decision but lacki
> ng definition of their municipal jurisdiction, or without having
> completed the planning and zoning procedures, and which as a result, have been
> described as “unauthorized” or “illegal,” the remaining outstanding procedures
> should be completed as follows:
> a.
> The area of municipal jurisdiction of each settlement, if not yet determined,
> must be determined by order, taking into due consideration future natural
> growth.
> b.
> The administrative barriers imposed on the planning and zoning authorities
> must be removed immed
> iately, so that they may fulfill their function of
> examining plans that have been submitted to them by each settlement, without
> any further need for additional approval by the political level.
> c.
> Pending completion of those proceedings and examination of the
> possibility of
> granting valid building permits, the state is advised to refrain from carrying
> out demolition orders, since it brought about the present situation through its
> own actions.
> d.
> With a view to avoiding doubt, it is stressed that all the settlement
> s, including
> those approved pursuant to this proposed framework, may in the future extend
> their boundaries in order to address their needs, including natural growth,
> without the need for additional government or ministerial decision, as long as
> the propose
> d extension is located within the jurisdiction of the settlement,
> within its bounds as set out in the approved town
> -
> planning scheme, and has
> received due approval from the planning and zoning authorities.
> e.
> Settlements established wholly or partially on land
> that is subject to
> examination as to whether it is public or private land (“
> seker
> ”), are to be
> considered settlements whose legal status is pending.
> Most of these
> settlements were established years ago, and it is thus necessary to accelerate
> the slow exam
> ination process (“
> seker
> ”), in all areas of Judea and Samaria, and
> to complete it within a fixed time period, and to this end, even consider,
> utilizing assistance from external entities. Upon completion, the processing of
> each settlement will continue
> according to the results of the land examination
> ("
> seker
> ") and determination of the type of land, in accordance with the
> framework proposed by us.
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 76
> f.
> In the event of conflicting claimants to land, it would be appropriate to adopt a
> policy whereby prior to any
> determination by the state regarding petitions for
> eviction or demolition, a thorough examination of the conflicting claims be
> conducted by a judicial tribunal dealing with land issues. This is all the more
> necessary with respect to claims of prior purcha
> se or obsolescence, or where
> the possessor acted in good faith. Pending such determination, state authorities
> should be instructed to refrain from taking any position in land conflicts and
> taking irreversible measures, such as eviction or demolition of bui
> ldings on the
> property.
> g.
> To this end and with a view to facilitating accessibility by local residents to
> judicial tribunals, we suggest the establishment of courts for the adjudication
> of land disputes in Judea and Samaria, or alternatively, extending the
> j
> urisdiction of district court judges in order to enable them to handle land
> disputes in Judea and Samaria in their courts.
> h.
> It is necessary to draft into the security legislation a right for the public to
> review databases administered by the various officia
> l bodies, including the
> Civil Administration, concerning land rights in Judea and Samaria.
> i.
> With an eye to promoting stability and preventing uncertainty, we are of the
> view that the residents of Judea and Samaria, Palestinians and Israelis alike,
> should be
> encouraged to register their rights in the land within a fixed period
> of time (four or five years seems to be a reasonable period), at the end of
> which, anyone who has not carried out the registration will lose whatever
> rights he may have had
> j.
> With regard
> to the “Order Concerning the Disruptive Use of Private Land ”
> —
> we are of the view that this order must be cancelled. In the event that it is
> decided to retain it, we propose that it be amended such that any decision by
> an Appeals Committee will not be rec
> ommendatory, but will rather be binding
> upon the Head of the Civil Administration to act pursuant to such
> a
> decision.
> The Head of the Civil Administration and other interested parties may appeal
> the decision of the Appeals Committee before a Court for Admi
> nistrative
> Affairs, whose decision will be final.
> We propose that this arrangement be
> applied also to other decisions of the Appeals Committee, including
> concerning questions of "Primary Registration" of land in Judea and Samaria.
> k.
> The composition of the Ap
> peals Committee should be changed. It presently
> consists of uniformed reserve officers, jurists, who are, of necessity, perceived
> at the least to be subordinate to, and even under the command of the Head of
> the Civil Administration. We feel that this situa
> tion is not proper, and
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 77
> therefore recommend that the Appeals Committee be composed of non
> -
> uniformed jurists, a factor which would contribute to the general perception of
> the Appeals Committee as an independent body, acting according to its own
> discretion.
> l.
> The "Procedure for Dealing with Private Land Disputes" must be revoked.
> Such disputes must only be considered and adjudicated by a judicial body.
> m.
> Security legislation must be amended to enable Israelis to purchase land in
> Judea and Samaria directly, and n
> ot only through a corporation registered in
> the area. We also recommend that the procedures for "Primary Registration"
> of land rights be accelerated and completed within a reasonable and fixed time
> period.
> n.
> The Civil Administration should be instructed tha
> t there is no prohibition
> whatsoever on additional construction within the bounds of a settlement built
> on land initially seized by military order, and such requests should be
> considered at the planning level only.
> o.
> We also recommend advancing the planning
> and declaration procedures for all
> areas designated for nature preserves and parks in all those areas of Judea and
> Samaria under Israeli responsibility.
> Finally, we wish to stress that the picture that has been displayed before us regarding
> Israeli settlem
> ent activity in Judea and Samaria does not befit the behavior of a state
> that prides itself on, and is committed to the rule of law.
> If as a result of this report, the message is conveyed that we are no longer in the
> formative stages of the creation of our
> state when things were done in an informal
> and arbitrary manner, we will be satisfied.
> The proponents of settlements, including at the most senior political levels, should
> take to heart and acknowledge the fact that all actions on this matter can only be
> done in accordance with the law. Similarly, official governmental bodies should act
> with alacrity and decisiveness in fulfilling their functions to ensure that the law is
> duly observed.
> 66.
> As noted in Section 2 of this report, many issues were raised befo
> re us by the
> interested parties, and some of an exceedingly complex nature. Were we to address
> all of them, e.g. issues related to the leasing of land belonging to absentees by the
> Custodian of Government and Abandoned Property, the issue of the status of
> land
> purchased in Judea and Samaria by Jews before the establishment of the state, it
> would have taken many long months of study and examination and a further delay in
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 78
> the consolidation of our recommendations. In these circumstances, we decided to
> focus on
> the main guidelines concerning the principal issues upon which we were
> asked to express our opinion. Should the government decide to adopt our
> recommendations, it will be necessary to implement those principles in detail.
> To conclude
> , we would like to ex
> press our thanks to the coordinator of the
> committee, Attorney Eran Ben
> -
> Ari, who thanks to his pleasant manner, hard work
> and devotion, efficiency and professionalism greatly assisted us in achieving the
> goals we were tasked with by the Terms of Reference.
> Jerusalem, 21 June 2012
> –
> 1 Tammuz, 577



What the Levy Commission said.

Easier to read here..  https://israelipalestinian.procon.o...l-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria.pdf  )

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign States are certainly not, we agree.  But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
> Israel fulfilled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.
Click to expand...


Huh? Supported by nearly every non-Arab Government in the world. lol

Greg


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign States are certainly not, we agree.  But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
> Israel fulfilled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.
Click to expand...


The creation of Israel was a unilateral move by the sovereign nation to independence.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and foreign actors are not allowed to block that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign States are certainly not, we agree.  But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
> Israel fulfilled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move by the sovereign nation to independence.
Click to expand...

Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Its so called "permanent population" was foreign colonial settlers. Israel never had a defined territory. The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.

My assessment is correct.


----------



## P F Tinmore

gtopa1 said:


> Conclusions and Recommendations
> 65.
> After having considered the terms of reference set out in the Commission's
> mandate, and in light of what we have heard, as well as the considerable amount of
> material that has been presen
> ted to us by a wide range of bodies, our conclusions and
> recommendations are as follows:
> Our basic conclusion is that from the point of view of international law, the
> classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 74
> conventions canno
> t be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis
> historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria
> spanning over decades.
> In addition, the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, regarding
> transfer of populations,
> cannot be considered applicable
> ,
> and were never
> intended to apply to the type of settlement activity carried out by Israel in
> Judea and Samaria.
> Therefore and according to international law, Israelis have the lawful right to
> settle in Judea and Samaria, an
> d consequently, and the establishment of
> settlements cannot in and of itself be considered to be illegal
> .
> With regard to the other issues considered, our recommendations are as follows:
> First, the Government is advised to elucidate its policy regarding set
> tlement by
> Israelis in Judea and Samaria, with a view to preventing future mistaken or
> “creative” interpretations of its decisions. We propose that its decision include the
> following principles:
> a.
> Any new settlement in Judea and Samaria will be established o
> nly following a
> decision by the government or by a duly empowered ministerial committee.
> b.
> Construction within the bounds of an existing or future settlement will not
> require government or ministerial decision, but such construction must be
> approved by the
> planning and zoning authorities after they have ascertained that
> the proposed construction is not contrary to the approved town
> -
> planning scheme
> applicable to the land in question.
> c.
> Extension of an existing settlement beyond the area of its jurisdiction or b
> eyond
> the area set out in the existing town
> -
> planning scheme will require a decision by
> the Minister of Defense with the knowledge of the Prime Minister, prior to any
> of the following stages: commencement of planning and commencement of
> actual construction.
> Second, with regard to settlements established in Judea and Samaria on state lands or
> on land purchased by Israelis with the assistance of official authorities such as the
> World Zionist Organization Settlement Division and the Ministry of Housing, and
> whi
> ch have been defined as "unauthorized" or "illegal" due to the fact that they were
> established without any formal government decision, our conclusion is that the
> establishment of such settlements was carried out with the knowledge,
> encouragement and tacit
> agreement of the most senior political level
> –
> government
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 75
> ministers and the Prime Minister, and therefore such conduct is to be seen as implied
> agreement.
> Regarding these settlements, as well as those established pursuant to a government
> decision but lacki
> ng definition of their municipal jurisdiction, or without having
> completed the planning and zoning procedures, and which as a result, have been
> described as “unauthorized” or “illegal,” the remaining outstanding procedures
> should be completed as follows:
> a.
> The area of municipal jurisdiction of each settlement, if not yet determined,
> must be determined by order, taking into due consideration future natural
> growth.
> b.
> The administrative barriers imposed on the planning and zoning authorities
> must be removed immed
> iately, so that they may fulfill their function of
> examining plans that have been submitted to them by each settlement, without
> any further need for additional approval by the political level.
> c.
> Pending completion of those proceedings and examination of the
> possibility of
> granting valid building permits, the state is advised to refrain from carrying
> out demolition orders, since it brought about the present situation through its
> own actions.
> d.
> With a view to avoiding doubt, it is stressed that all the settlement
> s, including
> those approved pursuant to this proposed framework, may in the future extend
> their boundaries in order to address their needs, including natural growth,
> without the need for additional government or ministerial decision, as long as
> the propose
> d extension is located within the jurisdiction of the settlement,
> within its bounds as set out in the approved town
> -
> planning scheme, and has
> received due approval from the planning and zoning authorities.
> e.
> Settlements established wholly or partially on land
> that is subject to
> examination as to whether it is public or private land (“
> seker
> ”), are to be
> considered settlements whose legal status is pending.
> Most of these
> settlements were established years ago, and it is thus necessary to accelerate
> the slow exam
> ination process (“
> seker
> ”), in all areas of Judea and Samaria, and
> to complete it within a fixed time period, and to this end, even consider,
> utilizing assistance from external entities. Upon completion, the processing of
> each settlement will continue
> according to the results of the land examination
> ("
> seker
> ") and determination of the type of land, in accordance with the
> framework proposed by us.
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 76
> f.
> In the event of conflicting claimants to land, it would be appropriate to adopt a
> policy whereby prior to any
> determination by the state regarding petitions for
> eviction or demolition, a thorough examination of the conflicting claims be
> conducted by a judicial tribunal dealing with land issues. This is all the more
> necessary with respect to claims of prior purcha
> se or obsolescence, or where
> the possessor acted in good faith. Pending such determination, state authorities
> should be instructed to refrain from taking any position in land conflicts and
> taking irreversible measures, such as eviction or demolition of bui
> ldings on the
> property.
> g.
> To this end and with a view to facilitating accessibility by local residents to
> judicial tribunals, we suggest the establishment of courts for the adjudication
> of land disputes in Judea and Samaria, or alternatively, extending the
> j
> urisdiction of district court judges in order to enable them to handle land
> disputes in Judea and Samaria in their courts.
> h.
> It is necessary to draft into the security legislation a right for the public to
> review databases administered by the various officia
> l bodies, including the
> Civil Administration, concerning land rights in Judea and Samaria.
> i.
> With an eye to promoting stability and preventing uncertainty, we are of the
> view that the residents of Judea and Samaria, Palestinians and Israelis alike,
> should be
> encouraged to register their rights in the land within a fixed period
> of time (four or five years seems to be a reasonable period), at the end of
> which, anyone who has not carried out the registration will lose whatever
> rights he may have had
> j.
> With regard
> to the “Order Concerning the Disruptive Use of Private Land ”
> —
> we are of the view that this order must be cancelled. In the event that it is
> decided to retain it, we propose that it be amended such that any decision by
> an Appeals Committee will not be rec
> ommendatory, but will rather be binding
> upon the Head of the Civil Administration to act pursuant to such
> a
> decision.
> The Head of the Civil Administration and other interested parties may appeal
> the decision of the Appeals Committee before a Court for Admi
> nistrative
> Affairs, whose decision will be final.
> We propose that this arrangement be
> applied also to other decisions of the Appeals Committee, including
> concerning questions of "Primary Registration" of land in Judea and Samaria.
> k.
> The composition of the Ap
> peals Committee should be changed. It presently
> consists of uniformed reserve officers, jurists, who are, of necessity, perceived
> at the least to be subordinate to, and even under the command of the Head of
> the Civil Administration. We feel that this situa
> tion is not proper, and
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 77
> therefore recommend that the Appeals Committee be composed of non
> -
> uniformed jurists, a factor which would contribute to the general perception of
> the Appeals Committee as an independent body, acting according to its own
> discretion.
> l.
> The "Procedure for Dealing with Private Land Disputes" must be revoked.
> Such disputes must only be considered and adjudicated by a judicial body.
> m.
> Security legislation must be amended to enable Israelis to purchase land in
> Judea and Samaria directly, and n
> ot only through a corporation registered in
> the area. We also recommend that the procedures for "Primary Registration"
> of land rights be accelerated and completed within a reasonable and fixed time
> period.
> n.
> The Civil Administration should be instructed tha
> t there is no prohibition
> whatsoever on additional construction within the bounds of a settlement built
> on land initially seized by military order, and such requests should be
> considered at the planning level only.
> o.
> We also recommend advancing the planning
> and declaration procedures for all
> areas designated for nature preserves and parks in all those areas of Judea and
> Samaria under Israeli responsibility.
> Finally, we wish to stress that the picture that has been displayed before us regarding
> Israeli settlem
> ent activity in Judea and Samaria does not befit the behavior of a state
> that prides itself on, and is committed to the rule of law.
> If as a result of this report, the message is conveyed that we are no longer in the
> formative stages of the creation of our
> state when things were done in an informal
> and arbitrary manner, we will be satisfied.
> The proponents of settlements, including at the most senior political levels, should
> take to heart and acknowledge the fact that all actions on this matter can only be
> done in accordance with the law. Similarly, official governmental bodies should act
> with alacrity and decisiveness in fulfilling their functions to ensure that the law is
> duly observed.
> 66.
> As noted in Section 2 of this report, many issues were raised befo
> re us by the
> interested parties, and some of an exceedingly complex nature. Were we to address
> all of them, e.g. issues related to the leasing of land belonging to absentees by the
> Custodian of Government and Abandoned Property, the issue of the status of
> land
> purchased in Judea and Samaria by Jews before the establishment of the state, it
> would have taken many long months of study and examination and a further delay in
> The Levy Commission Report
> Translated by Regavim
> 78
> the consolidation of our recommendations. In these circumstances, we decided to
> focus on
> the main guidelines concerning the principal issues upon which we were
> asked to express our opinion. Should the government decide to adopt our
> recommendations, it will be necessary to implement those principles in detail.
> To conclude
> , we would like to ex
> press our thanks to the coordinator of the
> committee, Attorney Eran Ben
> -
> Ari, who thanks to his pleasant manner, hard work
> and devotion, efficiency and professionalism greatly assisted us in achieving the
> goals we were tasked with by the Terms of Reference.
> Jerusalem, 21 June 2012
> –
> 1 Tammuz, 577
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Levy Commission said.
> 
> Easier to read here..  https://israelipalestinian.procon.o...l-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria.pdf  )
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

This is from Israel. Not a reliable source.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign States are certainly not, we agree.  But the peoples seeking self-determination are certainly allowed to influence the outcome and even "resist", right?
> 
> 
> 
> The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Britain did sabotage the legal obligations of the mandate.
> Israel fulfilled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation of Israel was a unilateral move by the sovereign nation to independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Its so called "permanent population" was foreign colonial settlers. Israel never had a defined territory. The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.
> 
> My assessment is correct.
Click to expand...


The Jewish agency was coordinated by Palestinians themselves.
Arabs and Britain succeeded in install a foreign monarch from Mecca, and sabotage the independence of the the alloted territory.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused; as I am sure that you are.



P F Tinmore said:


> The creation of Israel by foreign powers had nothing to do with the Mandate. It was a unilateral move.


*(COMMENT)*

You offer two equally incorrect criteria here.  You make to declarative statements here; neither of which is accurate; implying that either the State of Israel was:

•  Created by a Foreign Power;
- - - - - - - - - OR - - - - - - - - - 
•  Created unilaterially.​
The Allied Powers using the Mandate → directed the establishment of a Jewish National Home.  A "National Home" may be characterized by a number of different ways; one of which is a "State."

The Mandate did NOT create the National Home.  I'm not sure that anyone here is claiming that.  

I will say it once again (see *Posting #2895*), the State of Israel was:  Proclaimed by the "National Council for the Jewish State."  This action was a form of self-determination.  The new State of Israel established and defended its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The establishment of the state was NOT a unilateral move.  It was fully coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission _(the successor government after the termination of the Mandate and the withdraw of the British)_ pursuant to Part 1b(4) of Resolution 181(II).  
*
(QUESTION)*

Now that we've clarified that again, what is your point?  

Do you have a point to be made?
*(CURIOSITY)*

Are you purposely and intentionally, trying to ignore the factual and historical evidence when you make these unsubstantiated claims?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I would not brag about you assessment accuracy.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Its so called "permanent population" was foreign colonial settlers. Israel never had a defined territory. The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.
> 
> My assessment is correct.


*(COMMENT)*

See *Posting #2938*.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> .
> The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.



The vast majority that disproved the independence was created by hostile ways, against the will of the indigenous nation.

If Britain was to follow her legal obligations Jews would form a majority and give refuge to millions. They sabotaged it , all while giving Arabs virtually free unrestricted movement.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> .
> The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.



The vast majority that disproved of the independence was created by hostile ways, against the will of the indigenous nation.

If Britain was to follow her legal obligations Jews would form a majority and give refuge to millions. They sabotaged it , all while allowing Arabs virtually free unrestricted movement.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I will say it once again (see *Posting #2895*), the State of Israel was: Proclaimed by the "National Council for the Jewish State." This action was a form of self-determination. The new State of Israel established and defended its territorial integrity and sovereignty.


The *Israeli Declaration of Independence*,[note 1] formally the *Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel*, was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708) by David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[2][3] and Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.[4] It declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,

Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia​
It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The establishment of the state was NOT a unilateral move. It was fully coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority that disproved of the independence was created by hostile ways, against the will of the indigenous nation.
> 
> If Britain was to follow her legal obligations Jews would form a majority and give refuge to millions. They sabotaged it , all while allowing Arabs virtually free unrestricted movement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> The Israeli government was formed with the disapproval of the vast majority of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority that disproved of the independence was created by hostile ways, against the will of the indigenous nation.
> 
> If Britain was to follow her legal obligations Jews would form a majority and give refuge to millions. They sabotaged it , all while allowing Arabs virtually free unrestricted movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, whatever.
Click to expand...


Is that because You live on land that once belonged to a nation, now vastly reduced by Your own foreign majority?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not quite sure exactly who teaches you this stuff, but you should ask for your money back. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it once again (see *Posting #2895*), the State of Israel was: Proclaimed by the "National Council for the Jewish State." This action was a form of self-determination. The new State of Israel established and defended its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Israeli Declaration of Independence*,[note 1] formally the *Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel*, was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708) by David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[2][3] and Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.[4] It declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia​
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

At the 14/15 May 1948 (Mid-night) and the transmission of the Diplomatic Cable; prior to the transmission the Jewish Agency and the National Council were considered the representative Jewish Authority in Palestine.  After the cable transmission, the Jewish Authority transferred to the twin organizations of the Provisional State Council" and the "Provisional Government."

While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).  This is not dissimilar to the case where President Trump is a member of the GOP, the GOP is not a government organization with any official authority.  You are mixing apples and oranges.



P F Tinmore said:


> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.


*(COMMENT)*

If you go back and read the  second bullet down, I think you will find that I said:

✪ The State of Israel was created when the "National Council for the Jewish State:"​
I think you will find that I almost used the same verbiage.




 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The foreign state of Britain blocked the Palestinian's right to self determination until 1948. Then the foreign "state" of Israel has blocked it since then.



The State of Britain had an obligation to uphold the decisions of the Allied Powers including the decision to assist with the self-determination of the Jewish Palestinians in their homeland to create a National Home (State).  The Arab Palestinians and their foreign allies tried to block the formation of self-determination by the Jewish Palestinians.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

See insert S/747 First Third, second line.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment of the state was NOT a unilateral move. It was fully coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is a matter of record; and is a permanent part of the UN Membership Packet_ (recommended approved by the Security Council)_. UNSC 69.

V/R
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I'm not quite sure exactly who teaches you this stuff, but you should ask for your money back.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it once again (see *Posting #2895*), the State of Israel was: Proclaimed by the "National Council for the Jewish State." This action was a form of self-determination. The new State of Israel established and defended its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Israeli Declaration of Independence*,[note 1] formally the *Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel*, was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708) by David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[2][3] and Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.[4] It declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia​
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the 14/15 May 1948 (Mid-night) and the transmission of the Diplomatic Cable; prior to the transmission the Jewish Agency and the National Council were considered the representative Jewish Authority in Palestine.  After the cable transmission, the Jewish Authority transferred to the twin organizations of the Provisional State Council" and the "Provisional Government."
> 
> While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).  This is not dissimilar to the case where President Trump is a member of the GOP, the GOP is not a government organization with any official authority.  You are mixing apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you go back and read the  second bullet down, I think you will find that I said:
> 
> ✪ The State of Israel was created when the "National Council for the Jewish State:"​
> I think you will find that I almost used the same verbiage.
> 
> View attachment 203973
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

We may be splitting hairs here. The WZO and the Jewish Agency were the driving forces behind the Zionist colonial project.


RoccoR said:


> While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).



What about the other issues is my post?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> See insert S/747 First Third, second line.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment of the state was NOT a unilateral move. It was fully coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is a matter of record; and is a permanent part of the UN Membership Packet_ (recommended approved by the Security Council)_. UNSC 69.
> 
> V/R
> R
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the UNPC.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I'm not quite sure exactly who teaches you this stuff, but you should ask for your money back.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it once again (see *Posting #2895*), the State of Israel was: Proclaimed by the "National Council for the Jewish State." This action was a form of self-determination. The new State of Israel established and defended its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Israeli Declaration of Independence*,[note 1] formally the *Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel*, was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708) by David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[2][3] and Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.[4] It declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia​
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the 14/15 May 1948 (Mid-night) and the transmission of the Diplomatic Cable; prior to the transmission the Jewish Agency and the National Council were considered the representative Jewish Authority in Palestine.  After the cable transmission, the Jewish Authority transferred to the twin organizations of the Provisional State Council" and the "Provisional Government."
> 
> While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).  This is not dissimilar to the case where President Trump is a member of the GOP, the GOP is not a government organization with any official authority.  You are mixing apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you go back and read the  second bullet down, I think you will find that I said:
> 
> ✪ The State of Israel was created when the "National Council for the Jewish State:"​
> I think you will find that I almost used the same verbiage.
> 
> View attachment 203973
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We may be splitting hairs here. The WZO and the Jewish Agency were the driving forces behind the Zionist colonial project.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the other issues is my post?
Click to expand...


They were the representative tools of the sovereign nation.
A sovereign nation can't colonize itself.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I'm not quite sure exactly who teaches you this stuff, but you should ask for your money back.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it once again (see *Posting #2895*), the State of Israel was: Proclaimed by the "National Council for the Jewish State." This action was a form of self-determination. The new State of Israel established and defended its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Israeli Declaration of Independence*,[note 1] formally the *Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel*, was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708) by David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[2][3] and Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.[4] It declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia​
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the 14/15 May 1948 (Mid-night) and the transmission of the Diplomatic Cable; prior to the transmission the Jewish Agency and the National Council were considered the representative Jewish Authority in Palestine.  After the cable transmission, the Jewish Authority transferred to the twin organizations of the Provisional State Council" and the "Provisional Government."
> 
> While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).  This is not dissimilar to the case where President Trump is a member of the GOP, the GOP is not a government organization with any official authority.  You are mixing apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you go back and read the  second bullet down, I think you will find that I said:
> 
> ✪ The State of Israel was created when the "National Council for the Jewish State:"​
> I think you will find that I almost used the same verbiage.
> 
> View attachment 203973
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We may be splitting hairs here. The WZO and the Jewish Agency were the driving forces behind the Zionist colonial project.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the other issues is my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were the representative tools of the sovereign nation.
> A sovereign nation can't colonize itself.
Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, help me out here.  Be specific.

What is your point?

I'm not a mystic.  I can't read minds.  And I don't see your logic.

What is it that you want to know.  And make it a real question; not one that makes crazy assumptions.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I'm not quite sure exactly who teaches you this stuff, but you should ask for your money back.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say it once again (see *Posting #2895*), the State of Israel was: Proclaimed by the "National Council for the Jewish State." This action was a form of self-determination. The new State of Israel established and defended its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Israeli Declaration of Independence*,[note 1] formally the *Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel*, was proclaimed on 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708) by David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[2][3] and Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.[4] It declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia​
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> At the 14/15 May 1948 (Mid-night) and the transmission of the Diplomatic Cable; prior to the transmission the Jewish Agency and the National Council were considered the representative Jewish Authority in Palestine.  After the cable transmission, the Jewish Authority transferred to the twin organizations of the Provisional State Council" and the "Provisional Government."
> 
> While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).  This is not dissimilar to the case where President Trump is a member of the GOP, the GOP is not a government organization with any official authority.  You are mixing apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was ratified by the National Council for the Jewish State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you go back and read the  second bullet down, I think you will find that I said:
> 
> ✪ The State of Israel was created when the "National Council for the Jewish State:"​
> I think you will find that I almost used the same verbiage.
> 
> View attachment 203973
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We may be splitting hairs here. The WZO and the Jewish Agency were the driving forces behind the Zionist colonial project.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> While David Ben-Gurion heald office in both the WZO and the Jewish Agency, neither was an official arm of the Government of Palestine (British Civil Administration) or the Provisional Government (Israel).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the other issues is my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were the representative tools of the sovereign nation.
> A sovereign nation can't colonize itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...


Yet You run like a scared duck with no argument in return.
Typical Palestinian failure to address simple realities.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sovereign nation can't colonize itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...


Peoples seeking re-constituted self-determination in their homeland can't colonize themselves either.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*

**


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **



I find this video quiet insightful, lots of facts but also lots of misconceptions, mainly because they leave out too much history of the decades that preceded the Balfour Declaration.

The conflict didn't start with the declaration, neither did Zionism.
Just to balance it out here's a number of key points they left out:

1. *Zionism was already an organized and active movement*, without it already working on the ground for decades before their invasion, they wouldn't even consider relying on it as a stepping stone for whatever interests they envisioned. Immigrant and local Jews had already started to re-purchase land, build new neighborhoods and towns, thus actively transforming the whole country decades before the British invasion.

2. *Although much of this history is overshadowed by the horrors of the Holocaust*,
and the suffering of Jews in the European countries, Arab Pogroms against Jews were taking place simultaneously in the middle eastern countries, and specifically the Pogroms against Jews in Syria-Palestine.

3.*Israel bears no responsibility for British interests or actions*, Israel is neither a British representative nor its' vassal. Israelis fought both the Arab and British invasion at the same time.
On the other hand the Arabs in Palestine did attempt to ceede the land and sabotage the formation of an independent nation in favor of a bigger Arab empire, ruled by the royals from Mecca.

4. *The year Hertzl was born Palestinian Jews had already built new neighborhoods and towns*, and coordinated the creation of new economic platforms. It was all paid by the Jews of all diaspora. He neither started it nor was the leading figure. Hertzl was a representative who's job was to moderate the discussion between the many opinions in the Jewish community and translate it into the language of the international politics.
Britain or not, Holocaust or not - Palestinian Jews were already organizing around a vision of an independent country, and it was partially inspired by the Greek-Ottoman conflict of the 19th century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But mainly they solidify Israel position by referring to 'Palestinians" as exclusively Arabs,
there's Your whole problem and reason for why Jews fought for independence in the first place.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The channel has decided to dedicate the 1948 two programmes. One told about them from the perspective of living in Palestine-Arabs, the second – from the point of view of the Jewish Yishuv. “Al Arabiya” reported that the issue must be approached without ideological blinders.

(full article online)

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2018/07/palestinians-freak-out-over-balanced.html


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **



He keeps talking about the "creation" of a Jewish homeland.  Right away he is misleading.  The Jewish homeland ALREADY EXISTED.  While the Jewish people did not self-determination, self-government or sovereignty over that homeland -- that fact that is IS the homeland of the Jewish people is indisputable.  

"There were some plans to create a Jewish homeland out of the rift valley of Kenya or even Madagascar, but it was rejected because the Jewish people had these ideas of past (vague hand wave)... "Seriously?  I mean, really, seriously?  How about if we make a homeland for the Palestinians in Mongolia?  After all...these "ideas of the past" aren't even worth finishing the freaking sentence over, right?

..."but just going to live with the Palestinian people...that was encompassed in the Palestinian congresses ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...it contrasts with the Balfour Declaration ... and the non-Jewish community having civic and religious rights but they don't talk about having political rights and rights to self-determination and national identity...is no where expressed in there...in contrast to that the Palestinian Congress quite explicitly stated that those people who lived there should have rights to citizenship so there was very much a contrast."  Wait, what?  So he is saying that the Arabs offered MORE rights to the Jewish people than the Jewish people offered to them?  That the Arab people offered the Jewish people political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity?  Someone PAH-LEESE give me a link to that.  

Oh, there we go, he corrects it in the next sentence -- he says that there was a conflict between the Eastern European Jews (who wanted political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity) with the Jews who were a small religious sect, completely integrated into the (Arabic) community.  In other words, to clarify the double speak -- we would like to offer Jews political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity, well, as long as you don't actually WANT any of those things.  Sheesh.

Oh and let's throw in a smear -- Eastern European Jews are, you know, _distasteful_.  

Oh, and then he goes into a lovely comment about how Jewish people can't really be both ethnically Jewish and also be loyal to whatever country they find themselves in, therefore, they renounce their "Jewishness" in favor of their nationality.  Can we just level THAT playing field, please?  From now on, people of Palestinian heritage who have another nationality (nearly all of them in the diaspora) are not "really" Palestinian any more.  

Okay, I give up on that one.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Often described as the founder of Zionism’s “right-wing,” Jabotinsky was a controversial personality during his lifetime, in large part due to his insistence on the now widely-accepted notion that Jews have the right and obligation to defend themselves. The study of his life and thought has been the subject of increased attention in recent years, which seems to be indicative of a thirst for something that is lacking in the current Jewish political and cultural milieu.

Other leaders in the Zionist movement called for restraint in response to vicious Arab attacks on Jewish civilians in the Land of Israel in the decades leading up to the establishment of the state. They preached patience in the face of the British betrayals that pushed its founding further and further off even as the storm clouds of the Shoah began to form in Europe.

In contrast, Jabotinsky boldly and unabashedly called for Jewish self-defense, evacuation of the Jews of Europe for resettlement in their ancient homeland, and the establishment of Jewish sovereignty on both sides of the Jordan River. In other words, he called for victory.


Despite being smeared as an extremist and mocked as an unrealistic dreamer, Jabotinsky was undeterred. He inherently knew that while Jews have HaTikvah, Arabs have their own “hope” as well, one which is focused on the destruction of the Jewish State, whatever its size.

In 1923 he introduced a concept known as “The Iron Wall,” which demonstrated an understanding that the main obstacle to peace was the blanket Arab refusal to accept the right of Jews to establish a Jewish State in the Land of Israel. He keenly observed that peace would not be possible so long as the Arabs believe that they have a chance to put an end to that state and establish an Arab one in its place.

Contrast this with the constant refrain we hear from the false peace-peddlers of our time who call for endless compromises with an enemy that has not forsaken its dream of destroying Israel. “You don’t make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies,” they tell us. To this misplaced slogan, we should respond with what thousands of years of human history have demonstrated, “You don’t make peace with your enemies, you make peace with your _former_ enemies.” To cite an obvious example, peace with Germany and Japan would not have been possible at the conclusion of World War II had those two nations not given up on the idea that they could defeat the Allies.

(full article online)

Jabotinsky and Israeli victory


----------



## Sixties Fan

Zeev Jabotinsky's Zionist legacy


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He keeps talking about the "creation" of a Jewish homeland.  Right away he is misleading.  The Jewish homeland ALREADY EXISTED.  While the Jewish people did not self-determination, self-government or sovereignty over that homeland -- that fact that is IS the homeland of the Jewish people is indisputable.
> 
> "There were some plans to create a Jewish homeland out of the rift valley of Kenya or even Madagascar, but it was rejected because the Jewish people had these ideas of past (vague hand wave)... "Seriously?  I mean, really, seriously?  How about if we make a homeland for the Palestinians in Mongolia?  After all...these "ideas of the past" aren't even worth finishing the freaking sentence over, right?
> 
> ..."but just going to live with the Palestinian people...that was encompassed in the Palestinian congresses ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...it contrasts with the Balfour Declaration ... and the non-Jewish community having civic and religious rights but they don't talk about having political rights and rights to self-determination and national identity...is no where expressed in there...in contrast to that the Palestinian Congress quite explicitly stated that those people who lived there should have rights to citizenship so there was very much a contrast."  Wait, what?  So he is saying that the Arabs offered MORE rights to the Jewish people than the Jewish people offered to them?  That the Arab people offered the Jewish people political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity?  Someone PAH-LEESE give me a link to that.
> 
> Oh, there we go, he corrects it in the next sentence -- he says that there was a conflict between the Eastern European Jews (who wanted political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity) with the Jews who were a small religious sect, completely integrated into the (Arabic) community.  In other words, to clarify the double speak -- we would like to offer Jews political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity, well, as long as you don't actually WANT any of those things.  Sheesh.
> 
> Oh and let's throw in a smear -- Eastern European Jews are, you know, _distasteful_.
> 
> Oh, and then he goes into a lovely comment about how Jewish people can't really be both ethnically Jewish and also be loyal to whatever country they find themselves in, therefore, they renounce their "Jewishness" in favor of their nationality.  Can we just level THAT playing field, please?  From now on, people of Palestinian heritage who have another nationality (nearly all of them in the diaspora) are not "really" Palestinian any more.
> 
> Okay, I give up on that one.
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...


The Palestinians have always wanted equal rights for everyone without distinction. Even their current constitution states that all Palestinians shall be equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc...


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He keeps talking about the "creation" of a Jewish homeland.  Right away he is misleading.  The Jewish homeland ALREADY EXISTED.  While the Jewish people did not self-determination, self-government or sovereignty over that homeland -- that fact that is IS the homeland of the Jewish people is indisputable.
> 
> "There were some plans to create a Jewish homeland out of the rift valley of Kenya or even Madagascar, but it was rejected because the Jewish people had these ideas of past (vague hand wave)... "Seriously?  I mean, really, seriously?  How about if we make a homeland for the Palestinians in Mongolia?  After all...these "ideas of the past" aren't even worth finishing the freaking sentence over, right?
> 
> ..."but just going to live with the Palestinian people...that was encompassed in the Palestinian congresses ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...it contrasts with the Balfour Declaration ... and the non-Jewish community having civic and religious rights but they don't talk about having political rights and rights to self-determination and national identity...is no where expressed in there...in contrast to that the Palestinian Congress quite explicitly stated that those people who lived there should have rights to citizenship so there was very much a contrast."  Wait, what?  So he is saying that the Arabs offered MORE rights to the Jewish people than the Jewish people offered to them?  That the Arab people offered the Jewish people political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity?  Someone PAH-LEESE give me a link to that.
> 
> Oh, there we go, he corrects it in the next sentence -- he says that there was a conflict between the Eastern European Jews (who wanted political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity) with the Jews who were a small religious sect, completely integrated into the (Arabic) community.  In other words, to clarify the double speak -- we would like to offer Jews political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity, well, as long as you don't actually WANT any of those things.  Sheesh.
> 
> Oh and let's throw in a smear -- Eastern European Jews are, you know, _distasteful_.
> 
> Oh, and then he goes into a lovely comment about how Jewish people can't really be both ethnically Jewish and also be loyal to whatever country they find themselves in, therefore, they renounce their "Jewishness" in favor of their nationality.  Can we just level THAT playing field, please?  From now on, people of Palestinian heritage who have another nationality (nearly all of them in the diaspora) are not "really" Palestinian any more.
> 
> Okay, I give up on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have always wanted equal rights for everyone without distinction. Even their current constitution states that all Palestinians shall be equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc...
Click to expand...

The Palestinian "constitution" speaks only of Arab Palestinians.

Which is why there are no Jews in TransJordan, in Gaza and they want no Jews in all of "Palestine" if they ever manage to get their hands on the remaining 20%.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have always wanted equal rights for everyone without distinction.



*They have championed "equal rights without distinction" as long as they can insist on existing in Jew-free spaces or Jew-irrelevant spaces or in Jew-invisible spaces.*  Like the Temple Mount.  Like Gaza.  Like the West Bank.  Like all the ME countries which expelled or drove out their Jews. Like arguments about the settlements.  

There is nothing equal about this.  Its an illusion of holding people in a position of powerlessness, or irrelevance or non-existence or invisibility and then insisting that you are treating them as equals.  

Let's take the Temple Mount as an example.  Jews are permitted to be present on the Temple Mount, with significant restraints, as long as they are INVISIBLE AS JEWS.  

The proof is in the pudding.  There is no equality when you render another peoples non-existent.


----------



## Sixties Fan

“Evian was a death sentence," said Dr. Shimon Samuels, Wiesenthal Centre Director for International Relations, who spoke this week at an international gathering of experts in Evian on the 80th anniversary of the conference. 

"It succeeded in its aims:

- proving Hitler's point that no-one and nowhere wanted the Jews;

- setting the appeasement scene of Munich a few weeks later;

- justifying the British White Paper that closed the doors of the Palestine Mandate;

- giving validity to the 1942 Wannsee Protocol, which listed by country the number of Jews to be murdered, totaling over 11 million.”

“Of 32 countries represented, 31 Ambassadors rose to explain why they would not take Jews. Only one, the Dominican Republic, offered 100,000 visas for German Jewish bachelor farmers. The bachelors were expected to marry Dominican women. Agriculturists were very few. Nevertheless, some 500 arrived after the outbreak of war - the last to leave Europe.”

“However, Evian carries another message" he continued, "... the indisputable justification for a Jewish State... the wandering Jew has a home... there are no more Jewish refugees... for Jews, there can never be another Evian.”

(full article online)

The July 1938 Conference that sealed the fate of European Jewry


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He keeps talking about the "creation" of a Jewish homeland.  Right away he is misleading.  The Jewish homeland ALREADY EXISTED.  While the Jewish people did not self-determination, self-government or sovereignty over that homeland -- that fact that is IS the homeland of the Jewish people is indisputable.
> 
> "There were some plans to create a Jewish homeland out of the rift valley of Kenya or even Madagascar, but it was rejected because the Jewish people had these ideas of past (vague hand wave)... "Seriously?  I mean, really, seriously?  How about if we make a homeland for the Palestinians in Mongolia?  After all...these "ideas of the past" aren't even worth finishing the freaking sentence over, right?
> 
> ..."but just going to live with the Palestinian people...that was encompassed in the Palestinian congresses ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...it contrasts with the Balfour Declaration ... and the non-Jewish community having civic and religious rights but they don't talk about having political rights and rights to self-determination and national identity...is no where expressed in there...in contrast to that the Palestinian Congress quite explicitly stated that those people who lived there should have rights to citizenship so there was very much a contrast."  Wait, what?  So he is saying that the Arabs offered MORE rights to the Jewish people than the Jewish people offered to them?  That the Arab people offered the Jewish people political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity?  Someone PAH-LEESE give me a link to that.
> 
> Oh, there we go, he corrects it in the next sentence -- he says that there was a conflict between the Eastern European Jews (who wanted political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity) with the Jews who were a small religious sect, completely integrated into the (Arabic) community.  In other words, to clarify the double speak -- we would like to offer Jews political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity, well, as long as you don't actually WANT any of those things.  Sheesh.
> 
> Oh and let's throw in a smear -- Eastern European Jews are, you know, _distasteful_.
> 
> Oh, and then he goes into a lovely comment about how Jewish people can't really be both ethnically Jewish and also be loyal to whatever country they find themselves in, therefore, they renounce their "Jewishness" in favor of their nationality.  Can we just level THAT playing field, please?  From now on, people of Palestinian heritage who have another nationality (nearly all of them in the diaspora) are not "really" Palestinian any more.
> 
> Okay, I give up on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have always wanted equal rights for everyone without distinction. Even their current constitution states that all Palestinians shall be equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc...
Click to expand...


That must be correct. We just have to ignore 1,400 years of Islamist history to accept your nonsense claim. 

I’m hoping you can explain dhimmitude in the context of Islamic equal rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He keeps talking about the "creation" of a Jewish homeland.  Right away he is misleading.  The Jewish homeland ALREADY EXISTED.  While the Jewish people did not self-determination, self-government or sovereignty over that homeland -- that fact that is IS the homeland of the Jewish people is indisputable.
> 
> "There were some plans to create a Jewish homeland out of the rift valley of Kenya or even Madagascar, but it was rejected because the Jewish people had these ideas of past (vague hand wave)... "Seriously?  I mean, really, seriously?  How about if we make a homeland for the Palestinians in Mongolia?  After all...these "ideas of the past" aren't even worth finishing the freaking sentence over, right?
> 
> ..."but just going to live with the Palestinian people...that was encompassed in the Palestinian congresses ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...it contrasts with the Balfour Declaration ... and the non-Jewish community having civic and religious rights but they don't talk about having political rights and rights to self-determination and national identity...is no where expressed in there...in contrast to that the Palestinian Congress quite explicitly stated that those people who lived there should have rights to citizenship so there was very much a contrast."  Wait, what?  So he is saying that the Arabs offered MORE rights to the Jewish people than the Jewish people offered to them?  That the Arab people offered the Jewish people political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity?  Someone PAH-LEESE give me a link to that.
> 
> Oh, there we go, he corrects it in the next sentence -- he says that there was a conflict between the Eastern European Jews (who wanted political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity) with the Jews who were a small religious sect, completely integrated into the (Arabic) community.  In other words, to clarify the double speak -- we would like to offer Jews political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity, well, as long as you don't actually WANT any of those things.  Sheesh.
> 
> Oh and let's throw in a smear -- Eastern European Jews are, you know, _distasteful_.
> 
> Oh, and then he goes into a lovely comment about how Jewish people can't really be both ethnically Jewish and also be loyal to whatever country they find themselves in, therefore, they renounce their "Jewishness" in favor of their nationality.  Can we just level THAT playing field, please?  From now on, people of Palestinian heritage who have another nationality (nearly all of them in the diaspora) are not "really" Palestinian any more.
> 
> Okay, I give up on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have always wanted equal rights for everyone without distinction. Even their current constitution states that all Palestinians shall be equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must be correct. We just have to ignore 1,400 years of Islamist history to accept your nonsense claim.
> 
> I’m hoping you can explain dhimmitude in the context of Islamic equal rights.
Click to expand...

Sure, they haven't had it for 150 years.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He keeps talking about the "creation" of a Jewish homeland.  Right away he is misleading.  The Jewish homeland ALREADY EXISTED.  While the Jewish people did not self-determination, self-government or sovereignty over that homeland -- that fact that is IS the homeland of the Jewish people is indisputable.
> 
> "There were some plans to create a Jewish homeland out of the rift valley of Kenya or even Madagascar, but it was rejected because the Jewish people had these ideas of past (vague hand wave)... "Seriously?  I mean, really, seriously?  How about if we make a homeland for the Palestinians in Mongolia?  After all...these "ideas of the past" aren't even worth finishing the freaking sentence over, right?
> 
> ..."but just going to live with the Palestinian people...that was encompassed in the Palestinian congresses ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...it contrasts with the Balfour Declaration ... and the non-Jewish community having civic and religious rights but they don't talk about having political rights and rights to self-determination and national identity...is no where expressed in there...in contrast to that the Palestinian Congress quite explicitly stated that those people who lived there should have rights to citizenship so there was very much a contrast."  Wait, what?  So he is saying that the Arabs offered MORE rights to the Jewish people than the Jewish people offered to them?  That the Arab people offered the Jewish people political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity?  Someone PAH-LEESE give me a link to that.
> 
> Oh, there we go, he corrects it in the next sentence -- he says that there was a conflict between the Eastern European Jews (who wanted political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity) with the Jews who were a small religious sect, completely integrated into the (Arabic) community.  In other words, to clarify the double speak -- we would like to offer Jews political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity, well, as long as you don't actually WANT any of those things.  Sheesh.
> 
> Oh and let's throw in a smear -- Eastern European Jews are, you know, _distasteful_.
> 
> Oh, and then he goes into a lovely comment about how Jewish people can't really be both ethnically Jewish and also be loyal to whatever country they find themselves in, therefore, they renounce their "Jewishness" in favor of their nationality.  Can we just level THAT playing field, please?  From now on, people of Palestinian heritage who have another nationality (nearly all of them in the diaspora) are not "really" Palestinian any more.
> 
> Okay, I give up on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have always wanted equal rights for everyone without distinction. Even their current constitution states that all Palestinians shall be equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must be correct. We just have to ignore 1,400 years of Islamist history to accept your nonsense claim.
> 
> I’m hoping you can explain dhimmitude in the context of Islamic equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, they haven't had it for 150 years.
Click to expand...


They couldn’t enforce it. But the fact is, the fascistic imposition of dhimmitude is a core element of Islamic ideology and was imposed by Islamics in the geographic area of Pal’istan as it was elsewhere under Islamic fascist rule.

Sweeping it under your prayer rug doesn't change the history of Islamic fascism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Great Book Robbery*

**


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Great Book Robbery*
> 
> **



Gathering books during war is a moral act, it shows the winning side has value for books.
Arabs used to loot Jewish communities in Palestine for centuries. Some of the findings in Arab houses included broken relics of ancient Synagogues in the area, Torah scrolls from Jerusalem gates that were stolen regularly, silver coins of Cohanim, golden covers of Torah scrolls.

During the Arab occupation of Jerusalem the Arab forces destroyed the archive of the Sephardic Committee. Thousands of official documents both Arabic and Turkish dating back to the beginning of the Ottoman conquest were destroyed intentionally:


*The Archive of the Sephardic Comitee*

"The greatest disaster occurred during the siege of Jerusalem in 1947-1948, when the house in which the office of the Sephardic Community Committee was destroyed, and material of a great historic documentary has been destroyed. The late president, Yitzhak Ben Zvi, was able to understand the importance of material and photocopy part of the collection of documents and certificates in the archive in question for the purposes of the 'Institute for Research of Jewish communities in the East', which bears his name.
In the period following the Six-Day War (June 1967), when various inquiries were needed to pry through the Turkish and Arab documents belonging to the Sephardi community in the the Old City of Jerusalem, and especially the assets of the Mikdash - such as the Mount of Olives, the Tomb of Simon the Righteous, land and houses in the village of Shiloah - the importance of that archive was re-established as both historic and legal.

The archive contains a long list of Turkish and Arabic documents from the beginning of the Ottoman occupation of  the Land of Israel. These documents and certificates were issued by the judges in the Sharia court in Jerusalem (Hajja Sharaya), and a few are Sultana (Farman) orders, provincial authorities and the locals. Their special value lies in the fact that we have a precise and real archival material in the framework of fixed dates, that is, the kind that is not kept for us, for the most part, because of distress and damage which were passed by the Jewish communities; The matters discussed in these documents are agreements and contracts which were held between Jews, mainly the representatives (leaders) of the Jewish community (al-Taifa al Yahudiya), or (Al-Taifa al-Musuya) and the Arabs of the village of Ein Silwan (the village of Shiloah), opposite the wall, the city on the south side of Mazra (and residents of other places), on the purchase of plots, rights of passage, sale of land for cemeteries and the like.
In the documents, we read about the heads of the community who are conducting tedious negotiations with the guardians of the Muslim sanctities, defending the rights of their community, and participating as representatives of the community in interrogations. The formalities of the authorities, more than once, disputes broke out between representatives of the Sephardic community and the administrators of the sanctuary Madrasat al - Salihia , which were decided in the Shari'a court in favor of the former.







From time to time, the neighboring Arabs would steal the lands, and the Jews would have to redeem them. In this context, Jewish ownership of the Mount of Olives (Jabel al-Tur) and the cemetery is clarified - both the new and the old. Among these cases is one of the oldest property certificates dealing with the Mount of Olives, and it was originally preserved in the Jewish archives from 1537."

https://www.ybz.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Article_1.2.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He keeps talking about the "creation" of a Jewish homeland.  Right away he is misleading.  The Jewish homeland ALREADY EXISTED.  While the Jewish people did not self-determination, self-government or sovereignty over that homeland -- that fact that is IS the homeland of the Jewish people is indisputable.
> 
> "There were some plans to create a Jewish homeland out of the rift valley of Kenya or even Madagascar, but it was rejected because the Jewish people had these ideas of past (vague hand wave)... "Seriously?  I mean, really, seriously?  How about if we make a homeland for the Palestinians in Mongolia?  After all...these "ideas of the past" aren't even worth finishing the freaking sentence over, right?
> 
> ..."but just going to live with the Palestinian people...that was encompassed in the Palestinian congresses ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...it contrasts with the Balfour Declaration ... and the non-Jewish community having civic and religious rights but they don't talk about having political rights and rights to self-determination and national identity...is no where expressed in there...in contrast to that the Palestinian Congress quite explicitly stated that those people who lived there should have rights to citizenship so there was very much a contrast."  Wait, what?  So he is saying that the Arabs offered MORE rights to the Jewish people than the Jewish people offered to them?  That the Arab people offered the Jewish people political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity?  Someone PAH-LEESE give me a link to that.
> 
> Oh, there we go, he corrects it in the next sentence -- he says that there was a conflict between the Eastern European Jews (who wanted political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity) with the Jews who were a small religious sect, completely integrated into the (Arabic) community.  In other words, to clarify the double speak -- we would like to offer Jews political rights, rights to self-determination and rights to national identity, well, as long as you don't actually WANT any of those things.  Sheesh.
> 
> Oh and let's throw in a smear -- Eastern European Jews are, you know, _distasteful_.
> 
> Oh, and then he goes into a lovely comment about how Jewish people can't really be both ethnically Jewish and also be loyal to whatever country they find themselves in, therefore, they renounce their "Jewishness" in favor of their nationality.  Can we just level THAT playing field, please?  From now on, people of Palestinian heritage who have another nationality (nearly all of them in the diaspora) are not "really" Palestinian any more.
> 
> Okay, I give up on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...they state quite clearly that anyone, those who have lived in Palestine, Mizrahi, Arab Jews, and those people who lived there, that those people should have full rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians have always wanted equal rights for everyone without distinction. Even their current constitution states that all Palestinians shall be equal under the law without regard to race, religion, sex, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must be correct. We just have to ignore 1,400 years of Islamist history to accept your nonsense claim.
> 
> I’m hoping you can explain dhimmitude in the context of Islamic equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, they haven't had it for 150 years.
Click to expand...


They merely changed the name,
Muslims imposed 4 additional taxes on Palestinian Jews for merely being non-Muslim.


----------



## Ria_Longhorn

Sixties Fan said:


> “Evian was a death sentence," said Dr. Shimon Samuels, Wiesenthal Centre Director for International Relations, who spoke this week at an international gathering of experts in Evian on the 80th anniversary of the conference.
> 
> "It succeeded in its aims:
> 
> - proving Hitler's point that no-one and nowhere wanted the Jews;
> 
> - setting the appeasement scene of Munich a few weeks later;
> 
> - justifying the British White Paper that closed the doors of the Palestine Mandate;
> 
> - giving validity to the 1942 Wannsee Protocol, which listed by country the number of Jews to be murdered, totaling over 11 million.”
> 
> “Of 32 countries represented, 31 Ambassadors rose to explain why they would not take Jews. Only one, the Dominican Republic, offered 100,000 visas for German Jewish bachelor farmers. The bachelors were expected to marry Dominican women. Agriculturists were very few. Nevertheless, some 500 arrived after the outbreak of war - the last to leave Europe.”
> 
> “However, Evian carries another message" he continued, "... the indisputable justification for a Jewish State... the wandering Jew has a home... there are no more Jewish refugees... for Jews, there can never be another Evian.”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> The July 1938 Conference that sealed the fate of European Jewry



Thirty-two countries at the July 1938 Evian Conference and only one country (with an ulterior motive) agrees to accept the desperate Jews of Europe!  It should be known that the head of the Evian Conference was one, Earl Winterton, a British anti-Semite who sided with the Arabs on the Palestine issue.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  Ria_Longhorn, _et al,_

Our friend "Ria_Longhorn" has unmasked the very nature and true essence, and general consensus of the Europeans in 1938.  Although the July Evians Conference was not the spark of the rath, nor even the starter fluid for the flame → that would soon change → being kindling for what would befall the Jewish People in Europe.  It was only four short months later (November) that history would record the _Kristallnacht_; and the Question on the "Final Solution" _(the Jewish Problem)_ are sown. 


“in shortest order, actions against Jews and
especially their synagogues will take place in
all of Germany. These are not to be interfered with.”
_Heinrich Müller, Reichsführer-SS _
_Reichssicherheitshauptamt [Reich Main Security Office (RSHA)]_
_Chef der Deutschen Polizei_​
Politically note the intent of → the 1938 conference → "Jewish refugee problem and the plight of the increasing numbers of Jewish refugees fleeing persecution by Nazi Germany" → and the lack of any significant outcome.



Ria_Longhorn said:


> Thirty-two countries at the July 1938 Evian Conference and only one country (with an ulterior motive) agrees to accept the desperate Jews of Europe!  It should be known that the head of the Evian Conference was one, Earl Winterton, a British anti-Semite who sided with the Arabs on the Palestine issue.



*{Just as a matter of note...}*

Edward Turnour [AKA The 6th Earl Winterton (1883–1962)] was a man of Nobility _(although privately considered a prate)_; Viscount Turnour _(until 1907)_.  Politically, the 6th Earl Winterton was considered a failure and largely ignored as a man of influence after the Evian Conference; the outcome being disappointing.

*(COMMENT)*

It is somewhat unclear if Earl Winterton as inept, or really anti-Jewish.  Whatever the case, the plight of the Jewish people was not helped by anything coming out of the conference.

BUT this is not about today.   We should talk about today.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

An article in The New York Times in 1981 reported on a reunion of some of those involved in the attack. It gives background on what led to the attack, noting that the Haganah, the Irgun and Lehi all endorsed the plan:
 They were provoked by a British Army action against Jewish leaders and settlements on June 29, 1946. On that ''Black Saturday'' about 25,000 troops smashed into homes and kibbutzim, arresting 2,500 Jews and confiscating weapons.

''One search party marched into the dining hall at Givat Brenner shouting 'Heil Hitler!' Mr. Clarke wrote. ''Another party scrawled red swastikas on the walls of the settlement's classrooms. While searching the Bank Hapoalim in Tel Aviv, a British officer shouted at one of the clerks, 'What you need is the gas chamber!'''This 4-minute excerpt from the documentary "Pillar of Fire" gives more background, both on what led to the bombing of The King David Hotel and the conflicting stories on whether there was any warning given:

--------------------------
In his rebuttal of Segev, Yisrael Medad - an unofficial spokesperson for the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - notices a couple of significant differences:

No civilian casualties were intended. 
No suicide mission was planned.
Specifically:
 There was a telephoned warning. It was received. Flash grenades and a petard were set off. Phone calls from within the hotel from a signals officer who witnessed the shooting of a British Major were made to three separate security stations. The British troops on the roof opened fire for a few minutes on the escaping Irgun soldiers. Nothing set off alarm bells _but we do have testimonies that the Brits all thought it was a bluff_. [emphasis added]One of those testimonies comes from Adina Hay-Nissan, who at the time was a teenage girl with the job of calling in the warning. At the reunion, she recalled that she called up the British command that was stationed in the hotel and warned them, ''This is the Hebrew resistance uprising. We planted bombs in the hotel. Please vacate it immediately. See, we warned you.''

There is corroboration of this, delivered before the British Parliament on May 22, 1979, by Lord Greville Janner. At the time, Prime Minister Begin was visiting England and comments were being made about his responsibility for the King David Hotel attack. Lord Greville addressed Parliament about the issue:


(full article online)

Testimony In British Parliament Proves British Had Advanced Warning of King David Hotel Bombing -- and Laughed It Off (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Forget the movie: Second Officer William (Bill) Bernstein, an American Aliyah Bet volunteer crew member was found clubbed to death, 15-year-old refugee Zvi Jakubowitz, and one other died of bullet wounds.

(full article online)

The Exodus, July '47: When the British Navy attacked Holocaust victims


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*A History of Money in Palestine : The Case of the Frozen Bank Accounts of 1948*

**


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *A History of Money in Palestine : The Case of the Frozen Bank Accounts of 1948*



That's all nice mambo jumbo,

yet no Arab is willing to press charges for reparations, because they caused the most of property and finance loss in the conflict.


----------



## rylah

The community who's plight promoted the organization of 
international Jewish diplomacy:


----------



## rylah

An influential figure both during the days of the mandate, and today in modern Israel's younger generation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. 

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf



Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
Click to expand...

It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
Click to expand...

But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.

You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.
> 
> You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?
Click to expand...

The Palestinians.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

The title of the document is:

A Legal Examination of Palestinian Nationality under the British Rule​


P F Tinmore said:


> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf


*(COMMENT)*

Section I - Territorial Clauses _(Treaty of Lausanne)_ • and • Section II - Nationality _(Treaty of Lausanne)_ are entirely two different things and treated separately.  Please don't confuse them.

The International Status was a necessary first step in the creation of self-governing institutions - by which time: a third attempt had been made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine _(the British Civil Administration of the Government of Palestine)_ could be brought into cooperation with the government.  This was a critical mistake both diplomatically and politically on the part of the Arab Palestinians. 

This blunder was to be replicated by the Arab Palestinians a number of times over the last century.  Even today, the most important question the Arab Palestinian can ask is:

Where and when did the Arab Palestinians actually create a self-governing institution and establish sovereignty over a specific territory?   Where do the Arab Palestinians exercise the duties that involve the obligation to protect within its territory its rights?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.
> 
> You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians.
Click to expand...


The Mandatory power also had an obligation towards the Palestinians to facilitate specifically Jewish immigration in order to fulfill the establishment of a Jewish national Homeland -this obligation was specifically mentioned in the laws that gave the Mandatory power the sovereignty over Palestine.


----------



## Sixties Fan

We have shown in the past that the neighborhood, called Kfar HaShiloah before the Arabs named it Silwan, was exclusively Jewish at the beginning. Here's a photo I helped uncover back in 2010 of the neighborhood in 1891:









But when Palestinians are reporting on the story of this new "settlement," they have a completely different history.

PA spokesman Yousuf Al-Mahmoud said that the inauguration of the center "is one of the attempts of this extremist government to ignite the fires of religious war alien to us and our country and our culture, and is a blatant challenge to the Arab and Islamic nations, the international community and the resolutions of international legitimacy."

(full article online)

Palestinians rewriting history of Yemenite Jews in Silwan in a most disgusting way ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The title of the document is:
> 
> A Legal Examination of Palestinian Nationality under the British Rule​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Section I - Territorial Clauses _(Treaty of Lausanne)_ • and • Section II - Nationality _(Treaty of Lausanne)_ are entirely two different things and treated separately.  Please don't confuse them.
> 
> The International Status was a necessary first step in the creation of self-governing institutions - by which time: a third attempt had been made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine _(the British Civil Administration of the Government of Palestine)_ could be brought into cooperation with the government.  This was a critical mistake both diplomatically and politically on the part of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> This blunder was to be replicated by the Arab Palestinians a number of times over the last century.  Even today, the most important question the Arab Palestinian can ask is:
> 
> Where and when did the Arab Palestinians actually create a self-governing institution and establish sovereignty over a specific territory?   Where do the Arab Palestinians exercise the duties that involve the obligation to protect within its territory its rights?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> by which time: a third attempt had been made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine _(the British Civil Administration of the Government of Palestine)_ could be brought into cooperation with the government.


All of these "offers" required the Palestinians to buy into the settler colonial project where they would be, at best, second class citizens.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.
> 
> You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandatory power also had an obligation towards the Palestinians to facilitate specifically Jewish immigration in order to fulfill the establishment of a Jewish national Homeland -this obligation was specifically mentioned in the laws that gave the Mandatory power the sovereignty over Palestine.
Click to expand...

You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
Click to expand...


Not true at all. Non-Islamics were dhimmis under the Ottoman Turk rule. Further, Islamism has its entire history defined by fascism in that at no time in islamist history have the non-Islamics been considered as equals. Islamics, when in the majority, have always established their claims for a privileged position of superiority over non-Islamics.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.



P F Tinmore said:


> You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained.  HOWEVER*!*  In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military _(if not both and more)_*?* 

_(*RHETORICAL*:  In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces.  Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools.  In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)_ ​Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.  

And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change. 
_(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained.  HOWEVER*!*  In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military _(if not both and more)_*?*
> 
> _(*RHETORICAL*:  In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces.  Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools.  In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)_​Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.
> 
> And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
> _(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

*ARTICLE 4​*​
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​
Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained.  HOWEVER*!*  In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military _(if not both and more)_*?*
> 
> _(*RHETORICAL*:  In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces.  Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools.  In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)_​Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.
> 
> And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
> _(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> 
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​
> Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the Jews did.

They got sovereignty out of the RIGHT of the Jewish People to re-create their ancient Nation ON the Land where they had once a Nation.

RIGHT....versus the (little) might of the Muslim and Christian people

Hallelujah

Amen


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, even in the understanding by the Arabs,



			
				Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM Professor of Law Beirut Arab University said:
			
		

> Link:  Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎ > ‎
> 
> *Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory.*  It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (_terra nullius_) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
> 
> _Between 1949 and1967, the West Ban Area of Palestine and Jerusalem were under the control of the Jordanians.  It was abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 leaving it to the Israeli Occupation._​
> *For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.*   Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty.  Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States.  Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.   This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.





P F Tinmore said:


> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

Occupation, by itself, is not sovereignty.  Especially in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian territorial dispute.  The Arab Palestinians do not want to take the effort to enter into negotiates and the Israelis do not want a vast majority of the economic value is unprofitable andd the people are generational tax burdens. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.


*(COMMENT)*

While this two-bit slogan is nifty sounding → it does not have a ring of truth.  While the international community would, in an ideal world, like to see this.  It is not realistic.  The reality is, the exact opposite is true.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved from: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people to stay on topic.
> 
> In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.
> 
> The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
Click to expand...



No. They weren't "all Palestinians without distinction". They were an Arab group with very distinct cultural ties to each other who still see themselves as the same (Syrians, Jordanians and what are now called Palestinians) AND a very culturally distinct, historic, indigenous peoples with ties to the land going back thousands of years (the Jewish people). 

Denying that is ridiculous. It's like denying the sky is blue.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained.  HOWEVER*!*  In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military _(if not both and more)_*?*
> 
> _(*RHETORICAL*:  In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces.  Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools.  In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)_​Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.
> 
> And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
> _(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> 
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​
> Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
Click to expand...


Sometimes I honestly wonder if you read your own posts. 

"The rights of each (state) do not depend upon he power which it possesses ... but upon the simple fact of its existence... under international law."

It is a simple fact that Israel exists. You can't just pretend that simple fact is not true and make it go away.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, even in the understanding by the Arabs,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM Professor of Law Beirut Arab University said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link:  Private Site for Legal Research and Studies‎ > ‎My International Law Studies [In English]‎ > ‎
> 
> *Occupation is an original mode of acquisition by a State of a title to a territory.*  It implies the establishment of sovereignty over a territory not under the authority of any other State (_terra nullius_) whether newly discovered or abandoned by the State formerly in control (unlikely to occur).
> 
> _Between 1949 and1967, the West Ban Area of Palestine and Jerusalem were under the control of the Jordanians.  It was abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 leaving it to the Israeli Occupation._​*For the title acquired through occupation to be final and valid under International Law, the presence and control of a State over the concerned territory must be effective.*   Effectiveness requires on the part of the Claimant State two elements: an intention or will to act as sovereign, and the adequate exercise of sovereignty.  Intention may be inferred from all the facts, although sometimes it may be formally expressed in official notifications to other States.  Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be peaceful, real, and continuous.   This element of physical assumption may be manifested by an explicit or symbolic act by legislative or administrative measures affecting the claimed territory, or by treaties with other States recognizing the sovereignty of the Claimant State over the particular territory or demarcating boundaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Occupation, by itself, is not sovereignty.  Especially in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian territorial dispute.  The Arab Palestinians do not want to take the effort to enter into negotiates and the Israelis do not want a vast majority of the economic value is unprofitable andd the people are generational tax burdens.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While this two-bit slogan is nifty sounding → it does not have a ring of truth.  While the international community would, in an ideal world, like to see this.  It is not realistic.  The reality is, the exact opposite is true.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Adequate exercise of sovereignty must be *peaceful,* real, and continuous.​
By peaceful I would think that the occupation is uncontested. If that occupation is contested then that occupation is a form of illegal conquest.

We all know that the last hundred years of the occupation of Palestine has not been peaceful and is still hotly contested.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained.  HOWEVER*!*  In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military _(if not both and more)_*?*
> 
> _(*RHETORICAL*:  In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces.  Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools.  In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)_​Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.
> 
> And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
> _(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> 
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​
> Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I honestly wonder if you read your own posts.
> 
> "The rights of each (state) do not depend upon he power which it possesses ... but upon the simple fact of its existence... under international law."
> 
> It is a simple fact that Israel exists. You can't just pretend that simple fact is not true and make it go away.
Click to expand...

Israel exists where?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained.  HOWEVER*!*  In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military _(if not both and more)_*?*
> 
> _(*RHETORICAL*:  In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces.  Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools.  In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)_​Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.
> 
> And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
> _(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> 
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​
> Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I honestly wonder if you read your own posts.
> 
> "The rights of each (state) do not depend upon he power which it possesses ... but upon the simple fact of its existence... under international law."
> 
> It is a simple fact that Israel exists. You can't just pretend that simple fact is not true and make it go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel exists where?
Click to expand...


It has a border with Jordan to the east. A border with Egypt to the south. Disputed borders with Lebanon and Syria to the north. And the sea to the West. 

But what difference does it make?  Your own post says "simple fact of its existence". It's a simple fact.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> With this response, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The matter of sovereignty is vested in supreme authority in a political context; it is not dependent on how that supreme authority is maintained.  HOWEVER*!*  In the 139 sovereign member nations of the UN; which of these nations do not have police or military _(if not both and more)_*?*
> 
> _(*RHETORICAL*:  In the top 51 nations ranked Very High Human Development Index, ALL of them have a military force, Police and internal security forces.  Separately, every single member of the Arab League have similar enforcement tools.  In September 1970 The Palestinian fedayeen groups posed an internal threat in the Hashemite Kingdom in 1970.)_​Please don't be so naive as to think that law and order, national defense and internal security are not key components in the politics of 21st Century Nations of successesful nations.
> 
> And most certainly, military rule can sustain the sovereignty of a dictatorship; just as it can effect regime change.
> _(Countries Ruled by Dictatorship)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> 
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​
> Sovereignty is a matter of right not might.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes I honestly wonder if you read your own posts.
> 
> "The rights of each (state) do not depend upon he power which it possesses ... but upon the simple fact of its existence... under international law."
> 
> It is a simple fact that Israel exists. You can't just pretend that simple fact is not true and make it go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel exists where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has a border with Jordan to the east. A border with Egypt to the south. Disputed borders with Lebanon and Syria to the north. And the sea to the West.
> 
> But what difference does it make?  Your own post says "simple fact of its existence". It's a simple fact.
Click to expand...

Israel has say so borders with Jordan and Egypt.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's back up here a moment.  

Israeli borders, like the borders of many countries, are subject to minor adjustments, but for the most part, fairly firm.  The borders that are in common with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are without prejudice to the issue of the Arab Palestinians and the conflict in progress. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel has say so borders with Jordan and Egypt.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure what is meant by "say so borders."   This is jargon for which I no not the definition.

The Israeli permanent boundary with Egypt (to the south) and Jordan (to the east) are by treaty in settlement of the 1948 War _(Independence)_; and the outbreak of hostilities under Armistice in 1967 _(Six Day War)_ and again in the conflict of 1973 _(Yom Kipper War)_.  The final dispute settlements brought a close to the 1949 Armistice Agreements which were essentially to remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties.  The Armistice Agreements dissolved with the establishment of the treaties.

The formal boundary between Israel and Lebanon was _"Reaffirmed"_ in the *Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General* in which “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”, that “this line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949.”  Under the Vienna Convention Law of Treaties _(1969 - EIF:1980)_, the international agreement concluded between Israel and Lebanon _(mediated through the UN)_ in written form and governed by international law, tendered through related instruments and whatever its particular designation.

The Dictatorship of Syria, now going into its eighth year of Civil War, brought on by Syrian pro-democracy activists in 2011 _(AKA:  Arab Spring triggered by the arrest and torture of some teenagers who painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall)_ will change the face of Syrian domestic politics and the approach the government takes towards its population.  The unnecessary draconian and heavy-handedness of the al-Assad Government has cost the nation dearly in the backlash and making it weak and ripe for Jihadist, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters to grab a foothold.  The Syria of the 1973 Yom Kipper War, the Syria which refused to make peace with Israel, and the Syria which aligned itself with the Russian, may not survive in its pre-Arab Spring form.  It is to no one's advantage to enter into an agreement with Syria given the current conditions.

*(EFFECTS ON THE CREATION OF ISRAEL)*

In looking at the timeline of Israel since the intervention of the Arab League States, one can say that the various events along the way have contributed to the shaping and reshaping of Israel.  In the end, the Machiavellian intervention by the Arab League cost them dearly and did nothing to help the plight of the Arab Palestinians.  If anything, the unsuccessful attempts by the Arab League to dominate the Israelis in their attempt to build a Jewish National Home and suppress the right of self-determination only served to worsen the political, economic, cultural and developmental of every party involved.  The Arab military strategies of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 marked Arab setbacks again, and again, and again.  What they did accomplish was to encourage the Israelis to heavily invest in military firepower.

If anything, the Arab Palestinians fell prey to the territorial grab by Egypt and Jordan which took control the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River _(including East Jerusalem__)_.  The Arab Palestinians, in siding with and encouraging the intervention of the Arab League States will not likely regain the territory originally allocated in the partition recommendation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's back up here a moment.
> 
> Israeli borders, like the borders of many countries, are subject to minor adjustments, but for the most part, fairly firm.  The borders that are in common with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are without prejudice to the issue of the Arab Palestinians and the conflict in progress.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has say so borders with Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what is meant by "say so borders."   This is jargon for which I no not the definition.
> 
> The Israeli permanent boundary with Egypt (to the south) and Jordan (to the east) are by treaty in settlement of the 1948 War _(Independence)_; and the outbreak of hostilities under Armistice in 1967 _(Six Day War)_ and again in the conflict of 1973 _(Yom Kipper War)_.  The final dispute settlements brought a close to the 1949 Armistice Agreements which were essentially to remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties.  The Armistice Agreements dissolved with the establishment of the treaties.
> 
> The formal boundary between Israel and Lebanon was _"Reaffirmed"_ in the *Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General* in which “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”, that “this line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949.”  Under the Vienna Convention Law of Treaties _(1969 - EIF:1980)_, the international agreement concluded between Israel and Lebanon _(mediated through the UN)_ in written form and governed by international law, tendered through related instruments and whatever its particular designation.
> 
> The Dictatorship of Syria, now going into its eighth year of Civil War, brought on by Syrian pro-democracy activists in 2011 _(AKA:  Arab Spring triggered by the arrest and torture of some teenagers who painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall)_ will change the face of Syrian domestic politics and the approach the government takes towards its population.  The unnecessary draconian and heavy-handedness of the al-Assad Government has cost the nation dearly in the backlash and making it weak and ripe for Jihadist, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters to grab a foothold.  The Syria of the 1973 Yom Kipper War, the Syria which refused to make peace with Israel, and the Syria which aligned itself with the Russian, may not survive in its pre-Arab Spring form.  It is to no one's advantage to enter into an agreement with Syria given the current conditions.
> 
> *(EFFECTS ON THE CREATION OF ISRAEL)*
> 
> In looking at the timeline of Israel since the intervention of the Arab League States, one can say that the various events along the way have contributed to the shaping and reshaping of Israel.  In the end, the Machiavellian intervention by the Arab League cost them dearly and did nothing to help the plight of the Arab Palestinians.  If anything, the unsuccessful attempts by the Arab League to dominate the Israelis in their attempt to build a Jewish National Home and suppress the right of self-determination only served to worsen the political, economic, cultural and developmental of every party involved.  The Arab military strategies of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 marked Arab setbacks again, and again, and again.  What they did accomplish was to encourage the Israelis to heavily invest in military firepower.
> 
> If anything, the Arab Palestinians fell prey to the territorial grab by Egypt and Jordan which took control the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River _(including East Jerusalem__)_.  The Arab Palestinians, in siding with and encouraging the intervention of the Arab League States will not likely regain the territory originally allocated in the partition recommendation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the *southernmost tip of Palestine,* the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the *Egypt-Palestine frontier.*

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of *entering Palestine.*

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​
How did Israel claim borders on Palestine?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Over and over again.  

Of course, you conveniently forget the title of the Armistice Agreements.  It was not an agreement with Palestine.  Palestine was the short title for the Government of Palestine which was the British Government.

Palestine is not a holding or sovereignty of the Palestinians. 



P F Tinmore said:


> How did Israel claim borders on Palestine?


*(COMMENT)*

Self-determination and the establishment of a self-governing set of institutions; as recommended by the UN successors to the Mandate.  

It was not a matter of concern to the Arab Palestinians since they declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.  No matter what excuse the Arab Palestinians give for the decisions to reject offers to participate, the fact is they did reject the offers (several times).

You can nit-pick over names and quibble the reasons for trying to obstruct the development of a Jewish National Home.  But what was done is done.  No one can roll-back the clock.

There is an Israel, defined by their sovereign control.  Arguing about what you think can or cannot be done is simply unproductive.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Of course, you conveniently forget the title of the Armistice Agreements. It was not an agreement with Palestine.


OK, so?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Palestine was the short title for the Government of Palestine which was the British Government.


This was in 1949. The British left in 1948.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It was not a matter of concern to the Arab Palestinians


750,000 got the boot and their country was occupied.

Oh yeah, no concern.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There is an Israel, defined by their sovereign control.


Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a matter of concern to the Arab Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 750,000 got the boot and their country was occupied.
> 
> Oh yeah, no concern.
Click to expand...


What country was occupied?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a matter of concern to the Arab Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 750,000 got the boot and their country was occupied.
> 
> Oh yeah, no concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What country was occupied?
Click to expand...

The one where a million Palestinians lived.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a matter of concern to the Arab Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 750,000 got the boot and their country was occupied.
> 
> Oh yeah, no concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What country was occupied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one where a million Palestinians lived.
Click to expand...


Do you not understand it's an embarrassment that you invent a history of a "country" that never existed? Apparently you do so to calm an emotional requirement that allows you the delusion of your alternate reality. You have invented some place that never existed and here you are, on a public message board, expecting others to take your delusion seriously.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine was to be an Arab state/nation?
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't. They were all Palestinians without distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But for some reason a certain people were recognized in the Mandate of Palestine, with regard to their indigenous historic rights to the land. The Mandatory power had an obligation towards this nation, which it partially failed.
> 
> You know which was the only nation regarded in the context of sovereignty over Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandatory power also had an obligation towards the Palestinians to facilitate specifically Jewish immigration in order to fulfill the establishment of a Jewish national Homeland -this obligation was specifically mentioned in the laws that gave the Mandatory power the sovereignty over Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people keep confusing military rule with sovereignty.
Click to expand...


I don't see a refutation.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a matter of concern to the Arab Palestinians
> 
> 
> 
> 750,000 got the boot and their country was occupied.
> 
> Oh yeah, no concern.
Click to expand...


Of course Arabs were concerned, *their grandparents* have just expelled Jews from all of their holy cities.*Their parents* had just commited a wave of pogroms and swore to expel Jews from their homeland.

Arabs feared that other indigenous people might see that and get the example,of how to get independent from the yoke of the Arab empire.


----------



## Sixties Fan

We have discussed The Map That Lies a number of times, showing how the well-publicized maps of "disappearing Palestine" are complete misrepresentations of the truth.

It turns out that the entire concept of the false map was done many years ago - by Zionists.

Yisrael Medad uncovered this map from  an essay by L.B. Namier taken from “In the Margin of History” published in 1939.

The map accurately shows the diminishing size of the homeland promised to the Jews from the time of the Balfour Declaration through the British Mandate to the infamous 1939 White Paper:





The haters can't even be original.

(full article online)

Israel haters even ripped off "The Map The Lies" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Is there any predominantly Muslim nation that is not a social, economic or military disaster?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→   AzogtheDefiler, et al,

This is NOT quite as easy to assess as a bundle _(social, economic or military)_.  With the exception of the Comoros, Mauritania and Djibouti - most of the Arab League nations have a fairly stable economy.  But the comarative numbers globally are less than optimum.
​​



 



 ​


AzogtheDefiler said:


> Is there any predominantly Muslim nation that is not a social, economic or military disaster?


*(COMMENT)*

As you can see from the two maps, a vast majority of the Islamic nations overlay the some of the poorest nations in the world; the entire North African Coast, the Central Asian 'stans, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asian Island Chain.  Obviously, correlation does not mean causation.  _(Must be Coincidence!)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Mindful

The Jews were in Palestine as a matter of right and not sufferance.

The Mandate provided:

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co¬operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.“

The first betrayal of that promise and right came in 1921 before the Mandate was signed.  The Arabs had rioted and Britain decided to reduce Jewish immigration to “absorptive capacity” and  told Chaim Weizmann that the mandate wouldn’t be signed if the Jews didn’t agree to delete temporarily,  the east bank of the Jordan. The Jews had no choice but to agree and the Palestine Mandate was signed in 1922.  This territory amounted to 78% of what was promised to the Jews and it ultimately became Jordan. The deletion of the east bank became permanent contrary to Article 5 which prohibited any removal of land from the Mandate.

While the British Cabinet was generally sympathetic to the Zionist project, the Civil Administration appointed by it to manage the mandatory was anti-Semitic. It restrained the Jews and emboldened the Arabs thereby violating its pledge to use its best efforts to facilitate the creation of a homeland.  Whenever the Arabs rioted, the Jews were made to pay the price. Sound familiar?

After the Arab riots of 1929. a "white paper" was issued by Britain that stated that because of the shortage of arable land, Jewish settlement would be permitted only under stringent government supervision. Thus, another *betrayal.*

The step by step story of the 100 year betrayal of the Jews


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



The professor has a basic arithmetic mistake,
Arabs have started the war more than a 100 years ago.

Violence and pogroms against Palestinian Jews preceded Zionism and the mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The professor has a basic arithmetic mistake,
> Arabs have started the war more than a 100 years ago.
> 
> Violence and pogroms against Palestinian Jews preceded Zionism and the mandate.
Click to expand...

That would be about 1890. What happened before then?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

This is crazy. Israel won both wars. They are the victors they get the spoils. Is the US returning Cali and Texas to Mexico? Land grab has frequently been the result of war where the winners grab the land. We need to stop using emotions in these debates and start using logic.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The professor has a basic arithmetic mistake,
> Arabs have started the war more than a 100 years ago.
> 
> Violence and pogroms against Palestinian Jews preceded Zionism and the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be about 1890. What happened before then?
Click to expand...


Boldly about numbers shows You're an impotent debater,
 that's why anti-Israelis run like scared duck from facts.

Arabs have systematically expelled and murdered Palestinian Jews,
before Zionist immigrations and the mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The professor has a basic arithmetic mistake,
> Arabs have started the war more than a 100 years ago.
> 
> Violence and pogroms against Palestinian Jews preceded Zionism and the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be about 1890. What happened before then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boldly about numbers shows You're an impotent debater,
> that's why anti-Israelis run like scared duck from facts.
> 
> Arabs have systematically expelled and murdered Palestinian Jews,
> before Zionist immigrations and the mandate.
Click to expand...

Which Arabs?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The professor has a basic arithmetic mistake,
> Arabs have started the war more than a 100 years ago.
> 
> Violence and pogroms against Palestinian Jews preceded Zionism and the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be about 1890. What happened before then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boldly about numbers shows You're an impotent debater,
> that's why anti-Israelis run like scared duck from facts.
> 
> Arabs have systematically expelled and murdered Palestinian Jews,
> before Zionist immigrations and the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
Click to expand...




The same Arabs who You pretend were peaceful towards their Jewish neighbors.
Arab war against Palestinian Jews has been going for decades, before the 1st Zionist immigration, and prior to the British mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

.*The Liar as Hero*

"At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two."

Here is a clear and typical example—in detail, which is where the devil resides—of Pappe’s handiwork...


----------



## rylah

*The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel
 under International Law (Part 2)*


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

*The expulsion of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries*


----------



## Sixties Fan

I Was Robbed of 70% of the Land of Israel


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


>



Conquered persons go into exile. Yes.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Corbyn praises universities and institutions from 1945-48 Mandate Palestine - pretending they were Arab! (video) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

120th Anniversary of Second Zionist Congress Celebrated With Constructive Campaign


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


Nothing but another invented quote to the founders of Israel.

Here are some real quotes by Menahem Begin:

Menachem Begin Quotes - BrainyQuote

Menachem Begin - Wikiquote

TOP 17 QUOTES BY MENACHEM BEGIN | A-Z Quotes



All else....is Jew hatred Bull SSSSSHHHH


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


A documentary made by a "Palestinian" giving the Arab Muslim version of history.  how nice.
You had already posted it before.

It is no more true now, then it was when she directed it, or when you posted it.

So WHAT if there were more Arabs then others living in the Mandate for Palestine.

Does it make the Arabs the rightful owners of the land? No
Any more than it makes any European or Asian the rightful owner of any of the conquered New World.

From the 7th Century to the end of WWI, the Muslims conquered and populated other people's lands.  It does not make them the Indigenous people of those lands, nor does it give them the right to those lands if any of the indigenous people manage to take back any of it.

Arabs did not invade and conquer any of those lands, they simply followed later and multiply more.
-----------
She is an Arab, indigenous of the land of Arabia whose ancestors or parents happened to be in Jaffa when she was born.  Were they there for centuries, since the conquest or later, or were they part of the many Arabs who moved to the region known as Palestine for jobs the Jews were creating between 1860 and 1948?

*Maryse Gargour* was born in Jaffa. She spent her childhood in Lebanon. She has both the Lebanese and French nationalities. She graduated from the Institut Français de Presse and completed her PhD in the Sciences of Information at the University of Paris II Panthéon. She has been a producer and a journalist at the Office de Radio-Diffusion-Télévision française in Beirut. She has worked at the International Council of Cinéma and Télévision, Unesco, Paris and has been a freelance journalist for foreign televisions in Paris.


----------



## Sixties Fan

As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:

“the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.

There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.

They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.”  On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?

(full article online)

UNRWA is Jew-exclusive


----------



## Sixties Fan

As David Shayne notes,


according to Dr. Levinovsky, some 97 Jewish villages were attacked and damaged: 11 of these were destroyed entirely, 6 were conquered and lost – until after the 1967 Six Day War, when those conquered were re-established...Fully one quarter of Jerusalem’s Jews fled, mostly to the relative safety of the coastal plain.
Jerusalem's Jewish population numbered 100,000 in 1948. 

I stand corrected.

But I correct the record: as a result of the Arab terror ethnic cleansing campaign of 1920-1947, the true number of Jews who became refugees during the Mandate era, even if UNRWA limits the term "refugee" to the 1946-1948 period, is several thousands more, as we need include those who were driven out of Hebron, Gaza, Shchem, Jenin, Jericho, Tul Karem and Jerusalem.

The exodus from the Old City began in 1920, increased after Nov. 1921, after August 1929 and then during 1936-39 all due to Arab rioting and terror.
We know the British forced Jews out too.
At the beginning of the 20th century, 20,000 Jews lived in the Old City. In 1948, 1700 were left.
Thousands of Jaffa's Jews were forced out due to most of the same circumstances (in 1936, 10,000 Jews still lived in Jaffa. In 1920, 8740 Jews lived in Jaffa, by the British count, and that number increased until 1929.

Hundreds of Jews from Hebron.

(full article online)

My Right Word: Jewish Palestine Refugees - I Am Corrected


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:
> 
> “the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.
> 
> There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.
> 
> They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.”  On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UNRWA is Jew-exclusive





Sixties Fan said:


> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.


Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:
> 
> “the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.
> 
> There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.
> 
> They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.”  On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UNRWA is Jew-exclusive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?
Click to expand...

"The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:
> 
> “the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.
> 
> There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.
> 
> They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.”  On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UNRWA is Jew-exclusive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.
Click to expand...

There was no mandate in November 19, 1948.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:
> 
> “the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.
> 
> There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.
> 
> They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.”  On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UNRWA is Jew-exclusive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no mandate in November 19, 1948.
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→   P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

Leave it to our friend  "P F Tinmore" to focus on the trivia.  In November 1948, the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine was divided into two regions:  1) there was territory under the control of Israel, and 2) there was territory under the control of the Arab League. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:
> 
> “the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.
> 
> There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.
> 
> They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.”  On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UNRWA is Jew-exclusive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no mandate in November 19, 1948.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Technically you are correct.  In that November, it was:

*•  Article 77 UN CHARTER  •*
*
1* The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed there under by means of trusteeship agreements:
* a.* territories now held under mandate;
*b.* territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
*c.* territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.​
Now, what are you meaningfully contributing here? ⇒ "There was no mandate in November 19, 1948."  What is the significance of that?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→   P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> Leave it to our friend  "P F Tinmore" to focus on the trivia.  In November 1948, the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine was divided into two regions:  1) there was territory under the control of Israel, and 2) there was territory under the control of the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:
> 
> “the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.
> 
> There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.
> 
> They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.”  On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> UNRWA is Jew-exclusive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no mandate in November 19, 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Technically you are correct.  In that November, it was:
> 
> *•  Article 77 UN CHARTER  •*
> *
> 1* The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed there under by means of trusteeship agreements:
> * a.* territories now held under mandate;
> *b.* territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
> *c.* territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.​
> Now, what are you meaningfully contributing here? ⇒ "There was no mandate in November 19, 1948."  What is the significance of that?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Now, what are you meaningfully contributing here? ⇒ "There was no mandate in November 19, 1948." What is the significance of that?


The mandate was gone and it was still Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→   P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

No, you missed the point.  And you are trying to tie some significance to the name and the duration that name was valid.



P F Tinmore said:


> The mandate was gone and it was still Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

I have a Chevy Tahoe; here in after called Chevy, parked in the driveway.  The Title to the Chevy is in my name.  I sell the Chevy to my next door neighbor.  It is still called a Chevy; however, the title reflects a completely different owner and address.

Palestine is much the same way.  It was a carveout the Allied Powers named Palestine after 500 years of it being called by the name of the Ottoman Empire named the Political Subdivision.  For 500 years The Ottoman Empire named the Vilayets _(we call today by the regional name Palestine)_ as the Sanjuks of Acre and Balqa; with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip being in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem.

Each time a new Sovereign took possession of the region, something changed.  The "Palestine" --- in the time of Augustus Caesar was different from the time of Constantine, which was different from the time of Ṣalaḥ ad-Dīn.  And today it is different yet again.  And in that timeline, you would be hard pressed to mark on the timeline when the region was self-governing; especially by the Arabs of Palestine _(however you define it)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→   P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> No, you missed the point.  And you are trying to tie some significance to the name and the duration that name was valid.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was gone and it was still Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have a Chevy Tahoe; here in after called Chevy, parked in the driveway.  The Title to the Chevy is in my name.  I sell the Chevy to my next door neighbor.  It is still called a Chevy; however, the title reflects a completely different owner and address.
> 
> Palestine is much the same way.  It was a carveout the Allied Powers named Palestine after 500 years of it being called by the name of the Ottoman Empire named the Political Subdivision.  For 500 years The Ottoman Empire named the Vilayets _(we call today by the regional name Palestine)_ as the Sanjuks of Acre and Balqa; with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip being in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem.
> 
> Each time a new Sovereign took possession of the region, something changed.  The "Palestine" --- in the time of Augustus Caesar was different from the time of Constantine, which was different from the time of Ṣalaḥ ad-Dīn.  And today it is different yet again.  And in that timeline, you would be hard pressed to mark on the timeline when the region was self-governing; especially by the Arabs of Palestine _(however you define it)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that whenever a new flag flies over city hall that everyone moves out an an entire new population moves in?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→   P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

You just love to redirect the discussion and twist it to your convenience.



P F Tinmore said:


> Are you trying to say that whenever a new flag flies over city hall that everyone moves out an an entire new population moves in?


*(COMMENT)*

I did not say anything of the kind.  I did not make any comment at all about population migration _("that everyone moves out")_.  I was referring to the false significance you place on the name.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Palestinians were right to reject partition*

Before we can talk about partition, however, we need to talk about those demanding partition. Based on the Israeli narrative, this would be “the Jewish people”. This is a dishonest assertion and is often uncritically accepted by many.

This line of thought conflates the Jewish people with political Zionism, an ideology finding its origins in Europe in the late 1800s. At the time, the Jewish people were largely uninterested in Zionism. As a matter of fact many groups were fiercely anti-Zionist. The attempt to conflate the two is an attempt to give legitimacy to self-professed settlers from Europe, and portray any criticism of the Zionist project as inherently antisemitic.

Yet in the early days, the Zionist movement was astonishingly honest about its existence as a form of colonialism. The founding fathers of Zionism, such as Herzl, Nordau, Ussishkin and Jabotinsky –among others- employed the same colonial tropes and tactics used by Europeans to legitimize their imperialism. Not only was Zionism colonialism in practice, but Zionists openly referred to it as such; for example, Herzl sought counsel from Cecil Rhodes on how best to proceed with the process of colonization, describing Zionism as _‘something colonial’_. To drive this point even further, the first Zionist bank established was named the ‘Jewish Colonial Trust’ and the whole endeavor was supported by the ‘Palestine Jewish Colonization Association’ and the ‘Jewish Agency Colonization Department’.

At the end of the day it was a group of European settlers claiming an already inhabited land for an exclusivist ethnic state, while planning to _‘spirit the penniless population across the border’_ through various means. Modern attempts to retroactively whitewash Zionism, and portray it merely as a movement for self determination, cannot escape these facts.

Palestinians were right to reject partition


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Palestinians were right to reject partition*
> 
> Before we can talk about partition, however, we need to talk about those demanding partition. Based on the Israeli narrative, this would be “the Jewish people”. This is a dishonest assertion and is often uncritically accepted by many.
> 
> This line of thought conflates the Jewish people with political Zionism, an ideology finding its origins in Europe in the late 1800s. At the time, the Jewish people were largely uninterested in Zionism. As a matter of fact many groups were fiercely anti-Zionist. The attempt to conflate the two is an attempt to give legitimacy to self-professed settlers from Europe, and portray any criticism of the Zionist project as inherently antisemitic.
> 
> Yet in the early days, the Zionist movement was astonishingly honest about its existence as a form of colonialism. The founding fathers of Zionism, such as Herzl, Nordau, Ussishkin and Jabotinsky –among others- employed the same colonial tropes and tactics used by Europeans to legitimize their imperialism. Not only was Zionism colonialism in practice, but Zionists openly referred to it as such; for example, Herzl sought counsel from Cecil Rhodes on how best to proceed with the process of colonization, describing Zionism as _‘something colonial’_. To drive this point even further, the first Zionist bank established was named the ‘Jewish Colonial Trust’ and the whole endeavor was supported by the ‘Palestine Jewish Colonization Association’ and the ‘Jewish Agency Colonization Department’.
> 
> At the end of the day it was a group of European settlers claiming an already inhabited land for an exclusivist ethnic state, while planning to _‘spirit the penniless population across the border’_ through various means. Modern attempts to retroactively whitewash Zionism, and portray it merely as a movement for self determination, cannot escape these facts.
> 
> Palestinians were right to reject partition



Usual disinfo,
Hertzl wasn't the founding father, neither were Nordau nor Jabotinsky.
The article leaves out the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews, that led to the initial organization of international Jewish organization as a mechanism for protection.

The article as well deceivingly goes over the fact that Jews have been living in their land for more than 2000 years non-stop, longer than all invaders along the way. Also Jews call every presence of their community a "settlement", even those who have never left the place during the 2000 years when most of their people were in exile.

Arabs called themselves a RACE back then, they called Jews a race as well, as probably did any other nation referring to another. This was signed into an official agreement. Did it mean 'race' as we understand it does today, after the horrors of WWII? No, and neither any of the other terms You like to pick up from that era. Meanings change.

With that said the Hamas covenant confirms black on white their origins as foreign colonizing invaders of many nations. *That makes Israel merely a liberating force, the same as conquistadors of Spain who decolonized the Caliphate and liberated their ancestral lands.*


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Tinmore is an ignoramous.


----------



## NathanCross

Coyote said:


> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *



*I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener....... *


----------



## Sixties Fan

NathanCross said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener....... *
Click to expand...

Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.

Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.

Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......

Welcome


----------



## Mindful

NathanCross said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener....... *
Click to expand...


Amos Oz was actually living there:

In an interview with Deutsche Welle, he was asked:

_You were nine years old when David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's Independence. How do you remember May 14th 1948?
_
^^ May 14th was a Friday. Jerusalem had already been under Arab siege for two or three months. And the only road which connected Jerusalem to the other Jewish parts of the country was practically controlled by Arabs. From time to time, convoys would supply, would break into the city. But we experienced starvation, lack of water — because the water pumps were blown up by Iraqi troops and Jerusalem had no water — and fear.^^


----------



## NathanCross

Sixties Fan said:


> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener....... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.
> 
> Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
> These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.
> 
> Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......
> 
> Welcome
Click to expand...


*I'm just relating what I read. I always believed the opposite. Just another insight.... I'm sure it isn't the whole truth. I tend to favor Israel in its age-old struggle against the Arabs, even though I'm not a Neo-Conservative. My distrust of Islam is rather profound.   *


----------



## Sixties Fan

NathanCross said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener....... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.
> 
> Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
> These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.
> 
> Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......
> 
> Welcome
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm just relating what I read. I always believed the opposite. Just another insight.... I'm sure it isn't the whole truth. I tend to favor Israel in its age-old struggle against the Arabs, even though I'm not a Neo-Conservative. My distrust of Islam is rather profound.   *
Click to expand...

Reading something and the facts are totally different things.

Should I believe that the US Southern Confederates won the civil war in 1865, if I just happened to read that in a book by someone?

You are using Exactly the same formula used by every BDS member.

"I used to believe Israel was such and such, but NOW......."
"I distrust Islam"
"I am not a Neo-conservative"


Go and do some actual reading and do not come back until you do.

Your first post is beyond clear as to who you are and what you came here to do:

*I admit that I, too, drank the* "Kool Aid"*, concerning Israel's *supposed *fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims *it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel*, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth."*
*
*
Go and have some real drinks for a change.


----------



## NathanCross

Sixties Fan said:


> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener....... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.
> 
> Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
> These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.
> 
> Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......
> 
> Welcome
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm just relating what I read. I always believed the opposite. Just another insight.... I'm sure it isn't the whole truth. I tend to favor Israel in its age-old struggle against the Arabs, even though I'm not a Neo-Conservative. My distrust of Islam is rather profound.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading something and the facts are totally different things.
> 
> Should I believe that the US Southern Confederates won the civil war in 1865, if I just happened to read that in a book by someone?
> 
> You are using Exactly the same formula used by every BDS member.
> 
> "I used to believe Israel was such and such, but NOW......."
> "I distrust Islam"
> "I am not a Neo-conservative"
> 
> 
> Go and do some actual reading and do not come back until you do.
> 
> Your first post is beyond clear as to who you are and what you came here to do:
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the* "Kool Aid"*, concerning Israel's *supposed *fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims *it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel*, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth."
> 
> *
> Go and have some real drinks for a change.
Click to expand...


*While I appreciate your thoughtful response, I hardly have to remind you that yours is not the last word on this emotionally charged, highly political and controversial issue. When you consider the ruthlessness of Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, leading up to 1948, it should be obvious that the Israelis were certainly capable of mass murder. Yes, I believe there was considerable ethnic-cleansing, along with Arab attacks. Israelis were willing to do whatever it took to consolidate territory and secure their independence. That's understandable. Nonetheless, they must grasp the depth of Palestinian resentment. Moreover, the U.S. should stop underwriting their misadventures, especially settlement-expansions. *


----------



## Sixties Fan

NathanCross said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener....... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.
> 
> Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
> These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.
> 
> Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......
> 
> Welcome
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm just relating what I read. I always believed the opposite. Just another insight.... I'm sure it isn't the whole truth. I tend to favor Israel in its age-old struggle against the Arabs, even though I'm not a Neo-Conservative. My distrust of Islam is rather profound.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading something and the facts are totally different things.
> 
> Should I believe that the US Southern Confederates won the civil war in 1865, if I just happened to read that in a book by someone?
> 
> You are using Exactly the same formula used by every BDS member.
> 
> "I used to believe Israel was such and such, but NOW......."
> "I distrust Islam"
> "I am not a Neo-conservative"
> 
> 
> Go and do some actual reading and do not come back until you do.
> 
> Your first post is beyond clear as to who you are and what you came here to do:
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the* "Kool Aid"*, concerning Israel's *supposed *fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims *it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel*, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth."
> 
> *
> Go and have some real drinks for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *While I appreciate your thoughtful response, I hardly have to remind you that yours is not the last word on this emotionally charged, highly political and controversial issue. When you consider the ruthlessness of Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, leading up to 1948, it should be obvious that the Israelis were certainly capable of mass murder. Yes, I believe there was considerable ethnic-cleansing, along with Arab attacks. Israelis were willing to do whatever it took to consolidate territory and secure their independence. That's understandable. Nonetheless, they must grasp the depth of Palestinian resentment. Moreover, the U.S. should stop underwriting their misadventures, especially settlement-expansions. *
Click to expand...

And again, Mr./Mrs. BDS , you have exposed to everyone who you actually are and what you are here to do.

Namaste


----------



## Mindful




----------



## Sixties Fan

_From the July 1934 Journal of Foreign Affairs:_
_
There is a constant infiltration of Arab labor, on which there can scarcely be a practical check, from neighboring Arab lands.  It will increase as the country's prosperity increases. The crossings of the River Jordan are barred for eastward Jewish Traffic, but there is traffic westward for the Arabs of Transjordan....The Jews are not permitted to develop Transjordan; its Arab inhabitants are free to come in to Palestine to take advantage of opportunities of employment which do not exist on their home country and which have only been created in Palestine by Jewish capital and Jewish enterprise._

The second panel describes the terms of the UN partition plan,  conveniently leaving out the fact that the Jewish population agreed to the division of land, and the Arab population turned it down.  60 percent of the land allocated to the Jewish state was to be the arid desert in the Negev.

The third panel shows the aftermath of Israel's war of independence, and neglects to mention Jordan's control of the West Bank, or Egypt's control over Gaza.  Instead\ they describe it as  Palestinian Arabs  "in their own homes under Arab rule".  Contrary to the usual claims of 650,000 refugees, this  claims 400,000  "refugees in exile outside Palestine".

The last panel shows the conclusion of the 6 day war.  In this defensive war,  Israel reclaimed its historic heartland- Judea and Samaria, and captured the Sinai peninsula and Gaza. This is the map deliberately excluded from the modern incarnation- because the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt proved Israel's commitment of land for peace.

Both the 1967 map and its more modern counterpart misrepresent residency, ownership and sovereignty, and provide evidence, yet again, that while the Jewish people have history,  the Palestinian people  continually struggle to create a convincing "narrative".  Nothing has changed in 50 years.

(full article and maps online)

Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers: Maps of Disappearing Palestine: The Prequel


----------



## NathanCross

Sixties Fan said:


> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener....... *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.
> 
> Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
> These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.
> 
> Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......
> 
> Welcome
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm just relating what I read. I always believed the opposite. Just another insight.... I'm sure it isn't the whole truth. I tend to favor Israel in its age-old struggle against the Arabs, even though I'm not a Neo-Conservative. My distrust of Islam is rather profound.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading something and the facts are totally different things.
> 
> Should I believe that the US Southern Confederates won the civil war in 1865, if I just happened to read that in a book by someone?
> 
> You are using Exactly the same formula used by every BDS member.
> 
> "I used to believe Israel was such and such, but NOW......."
> "I distrust Islam"
> "I am not a Neo-conservative"
> 
> 
> Go and do some actual reading and do not come back until you do.
> 
> Your first post is beyond clear as to who you are and what you came here to do:
> 
> *I admit that I, too, drank the* "Kool Aid"*, concerning Israel's *supposed *fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims *it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel*, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth."
> 
> *
> Go and have some real drinks for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *While I appreciate your thoughtful response, I hardly have to remind you that yours is not the last word on this emotionally charged, highly political and controversial issue. When you consider the ruthlessness of Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, leading up to 1948, it should be obvious that the Israelis were certainly capable of mass murder. Yes, I believe there was considerable ethnic-cleansing, along with Arab attacks. Israelis were willing to do whatever it took to consolidate territory and secure their independence. That's understandable. Nonetheless, they must grasp the depth of Palestinian resentment. Moreover, the U.S. should stop underwriting their misadventures, especially settlement-expansions. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, Mr./Mrs. BDS , you have exposed to everyone who you actually are and what you are here to do.
> 
> Namaste
Click to expand...


*And that is....? Wow.... You're into thought-control, aren't you? You don't seriously expect the whole world to agree with you, do you?*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  NathanCross, Sixties Fan, Sixties Fan, et al,

What is there to believe?   What is there not to believe?  There is only what is_!_



Sixties Fan said:


> .





NathanCross said:


> .





Sixties Fan said:


> .





NathanCross said:


> .





Sixties Fan said:


> .





NathanCross said:


> And that is....? Wow.... You're into thought-control, aren't you? You don't seriously expect the whole world to agree with you, do you?


*(COMMENT)*

There are several facets to the issue.  And within each facet, there are different perspectives.  Each _(without regard to their side in the matter)_ sees the issue through the lens of reality.   That is because each perspective has a different center on the issue which changes their focus.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  NathanCross, Sixties Fan, Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> What is there to believe?   What is there not to believe?  There is only what is_!_
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is....? Wow.... You're into thought-control, aren't you? You don't seriously expect the whole world to agree with you, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several facets to the issue.  And within each facet, there are different perspectives.  Each _(without regard to their side in the matter)_ sees the issue through the lens of reality.   That is because each perspective has a different center on the issue which changes their focus.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

We are not dealing with different perspectives.
We are dealing with history.
What actually happened before and after Israel declared Independence.

BDS does not have a different perspective.  Never did.
If one can call it a perspective on the Arab side, it is that no land can be sovereign by Jews.

The Arab focus, is to take away the 20% which remains of the Mandate for Palestine off the hands of the Indigenous Jewish People. For the simple reason that they are Jews.  And because Islam does not allow Jews to be sovereign over Muslims.

THAT is their perspective and has been since Mohammad, and now since Al - Husseini became leader of modern Jihad.
All Arab leaders follow that perspective.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  Sixties Fan, et al,

Nothing that is historical is going to change the events as they unfold today.  It merely supplies the fuel to keep certain arguments open. 



Sixties Fan said:


> We are not dealing with different perspectives.
> We are dealing with history.
> What actually happened before and after Israel declared Independence.
> 
> BDS does not have a different perspective.  Never did.
> If one can call it a perspective on the Arab side, it is that no land can be sovereign by Jews.
> 
> The Arab focus, is to take away the 20% which remains of the Mandate for Palestine off the hands of the Indigenous Jewish People. For the simple reason that they are Jews.  And because Islam does not allow Jews to be sovereign over Muslims.
> 
> THAT is their perspective and has been since Mohammad, and now since Al - Husseini became leader of modern Jihad.
> All Arab leaders follow that perspective.


*(COMMENT)*

Only the last decade, and those actions which will shape the future of tomorrow have any real effect on the reality that is the point of contention today. 

The detractor is the measure of insanity that the Arab Palestinians want.


Borders:  Basically, the current Arab Palestinians in power want to roll back the clock to 4 June '67; to a time: 

The Jordanians controlled the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Egyptian controlled the Gaza Strip.
A day before the Six-Day War.
Before the Yom Kipper War
Before the Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
Before the First Lebanese War.
Before the PLO was declared the Sole Representative of the Palestinians and a time in which the Arab League still controlled the territories. 

Jerusalem:  The Arab Palestinians want:
Go back to before Israel annexed occupied East Jerusalem.
They want “permanent resident” identification cards, as a requirement, abolished.
They want total control of zoning policies.
They want the Security Barrier to be rerouted as to connect occupied East Jerusalem with the rest of the West Bank.

Refugees:  They want the Right-of-Return (RoR).

Prisoners:  The release of all Palestinian Prisoners arrested before the commencement of the Oslo peace process.

Water:
Lifting Drilling Restrictions.
Lifting restrictions on pumping from wells and the deepening of wells.
Access to the Jordan River.
Unrestricted access to freshwater springs.
Lifting Restrictions on developing new water and sewage infrastructure. 


The question becomes, does rolling back the clock to 4 June 1967 prevent any of the timeline events from happening?  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Mindful




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  NathanCross, Sixties Fan, Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> What is there to believe?   What is there not to believe?  There is only what is_!_
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is....? Wow.... You're into thought-control, aren't you? You don't seriously expect the whole world to agree with you, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several facets to the issue.  And within each facet, there are different perspectives.  Each _(without regard to their side in the matter)_ sees the issue through the lens of reality.   That is because each perspective has a different center on the issue which changes their focus.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not dealing with different perspectives.
> We are dealing with history.
> What actually happened before and after Israel declared Independence.
> 
> BDS does not have a different perspective.  Never did.
> If one can call it a perspective on the Arab side, it is that no land can be sovereign by Jews.
> 
> The Arab focus, is to take away the 20% which remains of the Mandate for Palestine off the hands of the Indigenous Jewish People. For the simple reason that they are Jews.  And because Islam does not allow Jews to be sovereign over Muslims.
> 
> THAT is their perspective and has been since Mohammad, and now since Al - Husseini became leader of modern Jihad.
> All Arab leaders follow that perspective.
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> If one can call it a perspective on the Arab side, it is that no land can be sovereign by Jews.


You miss the point of the issue.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  NathanCross, Sixties Fan, Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> What is there to believe?   What is there not to believe?  There is only what is_!_
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is....? Wow.... You're into thought-control, aren't you? You don't seriously expect the whole world to agree with you, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are several facets to the issue.  And within each facet, there are different perspectives.  Each _(without regard to their side in the matter)_ sees the issue through the lens of reality.   That is because each perspective has a different center on the issue which changes their focus.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not dealing with different perspectives.
> We are dealing with history.
> What actually happened before and after Israel declared Independence.
> 
> BDS does not have a different perspective.  Never did.
> If one can call it a perspective on the Arab side, it is that no land can be sovereign by Jews.
> 
> The Arab focus, is to take away the 20% which remains of the Mandate for Palestine off the hands of the Indigenous Jewish People. For the simple reason that they are Jews.  And because Islam does not allow Jews to be sovereign over Muslims.
> 
> THAT is their perspective and has been since Mohammad, and now since Al - Husseini became leader of modern Jihad.
> All Arab leaders follow that perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can call it a perspective on the Arab side, it is that no land can be sovereign by Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point of the issue.
Click to expand...


You're not understanding the context.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Robust Opposition: The Modern History of Israel/Palestine*

**


----------



## NathanCross

*While I adamantly oppose the Cultural Marxism pushed by many powerful Jews in the U.S., I generally back Israel, because of my profound disdain for Islam. It's a crazy world.*


----------



## Sixties Fan

NathanCross said:


> *While I adamantly oppose the Cultural Marxism pushed by many powerful Jews in the U.S., I generally back Israel, because of my profound disdain for Islam. It's a crazy world.*


There is no Marxism culture amongst the Jews of the US.  You are off topic.
And you clearly do not support Israel.

Your post has nothing to do with the history until the Independence of Israel in 1948.

And just for your information, Israel refused the USSR's invitation to become a Communist, Marxist country like them after the Declaration of Independence .

So much for any alleged knowledge of history you have.


----------



## NathanCross

Sixties Fan said:


> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> *While I adamantly oppose the Cultural Marxism pushed by many powerful Jews in the U.S., I generally back Israel, because of my profound disdain for Islam. It's a crazy world.*
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Marxism culture amongst the Jews of the US.  You are off topic.
> And you clearly do not support Israel.
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with the history until the Independence of Israel in 1948.
> 
> And just for your information, Israel refused the USSR's invitation to become a Communist, Marxist country like them after the Declaration of Independence .
> 
> So much for any alleged knowledge of history you have.
Click to expand...


*There are veritable tons of Bolshevik-Judaism in the U.S. What does the media, Hollywood and the publishing industry push other than Cultural Marxism (with a few notable exceptions, of course)? Recall the Jewish, Marxist, Frankfurt School which moved to the U.S. from Germany in the 1930s. Furthermore, Sharon, Ben Gurion and much of the founding generation of Israel admired the Soviet Union, and sought to build a state which emulate it. I'm not saying all Jews are Communists, but **A LOT** have been and remain so. *


----------



## Sixties Fan

If Zionism were colonial it would have ended long ago | Opinion


----------



## NathanCross

Sixties Fan said:


> If Zionism were colonial it would have ended long ago | Opinion



*Jews indeed "colonize", indirectly, by seizing control of international finance, the Western media, and the entertainment and publishing industries. In Palestine, they continuously squeeze out Arabs with their constant land-grabbing. That said, the Arabs are uncivilized, head-chopping Muslims, so who cares? Complicated scenario..... I support the Jews in Israel. I oppose the Bolshevik-Jews in the West. *


----------



## rylah

NathanCross said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Zionism were colonial it would have ended long ago | Opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jews indeed "colonize", indirectly, by seizing control of international finance, the Western media, and the entertainment and publishing industries. In Palestine, they continuously squeeze out Arabs with their constant land-grabbing. That said, the Arabs are uncivilized, head-chopping Muslims, so who cares? Complicated scenario..... I support the Jews in Israel. I oppose the Bolshevik-Jews in the West. *
Click to expand...


Repeating classic antisemitic canards from the 1920's is hardly a way to show support for Jews anywhere.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  NathanCross, et al,

_*PREFACE:*  I write this with the knowledge that I will probably be in the minority in this view. _ 
_(So be it*!*)_​While there may have been an argument in the past _(albeit not a strong one)_, time and political and cultural evolution puts quite a different face on Russian Social Democratic Party (Bolsheviks) activity today in the US, as different from night and day compared to pre-1939. 



NathanCross said:


> There are veritable _tons_ of Bolshevik-Judaism in the U.S. What does the media, Hollywood and the publishing industry push other than Cultural Marxism (with a few notable exceptions, of course)?


*(COMMENT)*

_Cultural Marxism has been dubbed "the greatest cancer in the Western world" 
but few even know what it is.
...................................................................................→ Destroy Cultural Marxism_
_.............................................................................................................Tuesday, January 8, 2018_​Cultural Marxism _(which sound very unAmerican - BUT distinctly different from Marxism-Leninism)_ is actually _(very technically)_ the support of multiplel culturals or ethnic groups within our society.  And is, by definition very American.  We often refer to America as a "melting pot" of many different cultures. 



			
				What is Cultural Marxism? said:
			
		

> *Cultural Marxism*
> Cultural Marxism is a *branch of western Marxism*, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness.
> 
> *Cultural Marxism-William S. Lind*
> marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm





NathanCross said:


> Recall the Jewish, Marxist, Frankfurt School which moved to the U.S. from Germany in the 1930s. Furthermore, Sharon, Ben Gurion and much of the founding generation of Israel admired the Soviet Union, and sought to build a state which emulate it. I'm not saying all Jews are Communists, but _A LOT_ have been and remain so.


*(COMMENT)*

Granted that many of the ways of the Jewish People _(their culture)_ might resemble "communism" _(inwhich all property and production is held in the hands of the overall population for the benefit of all)_ I will state categorically that there is no greater of an example of capitalism in the Middle East than that of the State of Israel.  There is not "a lot" of Communists in Israel, and there is not "a lot" of communists in the overall population of Jewish people.  

In fact, the reputation of the Jewish People is that they were very frugal with their money and were often the target of conspiratorial theft _(under the color of law)_ by Christian Leaders, the Papacy, and the influential Nobility.  This was true up and until the end of WWII.  And even today, there is a huge question if history will not (once again) record that the non-Jewish World Leadership is not using international law and the distortion of facts in the media too, once again, exploit the most advanced country in the entire Middle East of its property, capitalist holding and financial security_ (the takeover of business interests or investments - ie divestiture)_. 

Just My thoughts...

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## NathanCross

rylah said:


> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Zionism were colonial it would have ended long ago | Opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jews indeed "colonize", indirectly, by seizing control of international finance, the Western media, and the entertainment and publishing industries. In Palestine, they continuously squeeze out Arabs with their constant land-grabbing. That said, the Arabs are uncivilized, head-chopping Muslims, so who cares? Complicated scenario..... I support the Jews in Israel. I oppose the Bolshevik-Jews in the West. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating classic antisemitic canards from the 1920's is hardly a way to show support for Jews anywhere.
Click to expand...


*I recommend the book, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, by Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg. This Jewish scholar explains the problem best. *


----------



## Shusha

NathanCross said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Zionism were colonial it would have ended long ago | Opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jews indeed "colonize", indirectly, by seizing control of international finance, the Western media, and the entertainment and publishing industries. In Palestine, they continuously squeeze out Arabs with their constant land-grabbing. That said, the Arabs are uncivilized, head-chopping Muslims, so who cares? Complicated scenario..... I support the Jews in Israel. I oppose the Bolshevik-Jews in the West. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating classic antisemitic canards from the 1920's is hardly a way to show support for Jews anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I recommend the book, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, by Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg. This Jewish scholar explains the problem best. *
Click to expand...


Are you recommending the book as support of anti-semitisim?!


----------



## NathanCross

*The rise of Communism in Europe was heavily assisted by Jewish intellectuals and revolutionary leaders. That's a cold, hard fact. Jews are notorious for having a conservative culture, but liberal politics, due to their religious ethics. They're also clannish, arrogant toward Gentiles, and eager to subvert White Christian culture and society. While they humorously accept the grovelling of and money from Protestant Christians, they who worship the Bible and therein glorify the Old Testament, they despise the Catholic Church, their arch-enemy of old.   *


----------



## NathanCross

Shusha said:


> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Zionism were colonial it would have ended long ago | Opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jews indeed "colonize", indirectly, by seizing control of international finance, the Western media, and the entertainment and publishing industries. In Palestine, they continuously squeeze out Arabs with their constant land-grabbing. That said, the Arabs are uncivilized, head-chopping Muslims, so who cares? Complicated scenario..... I support the Jews in Israel. I oppose the Bolshevik-Jews in the West. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating classic antisemitic canards from the 1920's is hardly a way to show support for Jews anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I recommend the book, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, by Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg. This Jewish scholar explains the problem best. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you recommending the book as support of anti-semitisim?!
Click to expand...


*Give up the labels. Read it for the truth. And remember -- the author is Jewish, and a high-powered intellectual. *


----------



## P F Tinmore

*''UN-CUT FOR PALESTINE'' with George Galloway.*

**


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> *''UN-CUT FOR PALESTINE'' with George Galloway.*
> 
> **


An "expert"


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *''UN-CUT FOR PALESTINE'' with George Galloway.*
> 
> **



"The Jewish people had no wish to immigrate."  

Pah-leeze.  That is a lie Team Palestine tells itself to justify their mistreatment of the Jewish people.


----------



## Sixties Fan

One way to answer is this: For the 400 years before World War I, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, so it was owned by the Turks, not by the Arabs, let alone by the Arabs of Palestine. Palestine is an old but imprecise geographical term. It remained imprecise because there was never a country called Palestine. Even when—long ago— it was under Arab rule, Palestine was never ruled by its own Arab inhabitants.

So it’s not accurate to say that Palestine was a country, nor to say it was Arab land. Neither the Jews nor the British stole it from the Arabs. The original Zionists came to Palestine without the backing of any imperialist or colonialist power. They bought the land on which they settled. And before Britain invaded Palestine in World War I, the Ottoman Turks had joined Germany and attacked Allied forces.
--------

In other words, colonialism didn’t bring Britain to Palestine. Britain didn’t seize Palestine from an unoffending native population. It conquered the land not from the Arabs, but from Turkey, which (as noted) had joined Britain’s enemies in the war. The Arabs in Palestine fought for Turkey against Britain. The land was enemy territory.  

Supporting Zionism appealed to Lloyd George, Balfour and other officials not just on strategic grounds, but also for moral reasons. They sympathized with the Jewish national cause. Zionism was an answer to the historical Jewish question, a way to remedy some of the harm shamefully done to the Jewish people over history. And it would give Jews an opportunity to normalize their place in the world, by building up a national center and a refuge, a country in their ancient homeland where they could become the majority and enjoy self-determination as a people

When those officials were young men, George Eliot, in her influential 1876 novel _Daniel Deronda_, foresaw the creation of a movement to create a “new Jewish polity.” The Jews then, she wrote, in the voice of a Jewish character, “shall have an organic centre” and “the outraged Jew shall have a defense in the court of nations, as the outraged Englishman or American. And the world will gain as Israel gains.” That character continued, “[L]et there be another great migration, another choosing of Israel to be a nationality whose members may still stretch to the ends of the earth, even as the sons of England and Germany, whom enterprise carries afar, but who still have a national hearth and a tribunal of national opinion. . . .  Who says that the history and literature of our race are dead? Are they not as living as the history and literature of Greece and Rome, which have inspired revolutions . . .? These were an inheritance dug from the tomb. Ours is an inheritance that has never ceased to quiver in millions of human frames.” Lloyd George, Balfour, Winston Churchill and other British leaders in the Great War era echoed the lyrical pro-Jewish sympathy of Eliot’s best-selling novel. 

The Balfour Declaration, like Israel’s recent Jewish nation-state law, distinguished between a people’s national rights and the civil and religious rights of individuals. After endorsing “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” the Balfour Declaration said, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

(full article online)

Farmers and Fighters: The Making of the Land


----------



## NathanCross

*Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.*


----------



## Sixties Fan

NathanCross said:


> *Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.*


So much garbage.

Jews were defending themselves from endless riots and attacks from 1920 on, when JEWS and not Arabs were being systematically cleansed out of *ALL of Gaza - 1920,* A*LL of TransJordan - 1925*,* All of Hebron - 1929*, and then in *1948* from *ALL of Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem *(pay attention to the word Jewish, not Armenian, German or the fourth Quarter. No one from the other three Quarters of Jerusalem were attacked and then expelled ) * AND from ALL of Judea and Samaria.
*
The UN partition was NOT about clearing Arabs from Jewish Land.   You do not seem to be aware, or care that a huge number of Arabs stayed in Independent Israel, because the Jewish leaders did not attack them and demand expulsion, but actually asked to stay, be it in Jaffa, Haifa, or anywhere else.

The Palestinian Arabs who were expelled during the war started by the Arab League were the ones attacking Jews and wanting them dead.

What country would not expel those who wish their population to be dead and their country destroyed?

There are Millions of Arabs living in Israel because they did not raise arms agains the Jews but chose to be a part of the new country.

Go tell your conspiracy theories somewhere where no one will catch up with all the lies you seem to enjoy telling.


----------



## Shusha

NathanCross said:


> *Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.*



I agree with everything Sixties has already said.  Just want to emphasize your use of language and how it is used to claim false things as true.  


"Terrorism", by definition, is not conducted against military targets.  The correct term for military force used against military targets is "war".  As in:  _Israeli warfare, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets.  It won-over the Jewish people and defeated all opponents.  _
You specifically detail the British, but are deliberately vague about "all opponents".  The other opponents were also specific.  Why did you apply a vague term rather than a specific one, if not to hide who the other opponents were?
You use the term "military targets" but fail to explain what these targets were.  Why do you leave this part out, if not to hide the nature of those military targets?
"Ethnic-cleansing" is a common charge against Israel, but can be proven patently false on two grounds.  The first is the nature of an ethnic conflict where two peoples are vying for the same territory and the other the obvious fact that there are plenty of Arabs in Israel.  On the other hand, virtually no Jews remain in ANY territories or nations controlled by Arabs.  (And that's ALL Arabs, not just the ones actually in the conflict.)
You tie "clear Arabs from Jewish lands" to the partition as though it was the _partition_ which was the event which caused Jewish military action.  You deliberately leave out (hide) the true cause of the conflict -- which was the attacking Arab armies.
Then you use language which deliberately holds the Jewish people and Jewish State (and only the Jews) accountable for the continued conflict and excuse continued Arab belligerence.


----------



## NathanCross

Sixties Fan said:


> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.*
> 
> 
> 
> So much garbage.
> 
> Jews were defending themselves from endless riots and attacks from 1920 on, when JEWS and not Arabs were being systematically cleansed out of *ALL of Gaza - 1920,* A*LL of TransJordan - 1925*,* All of Hebron - 1929*, and then in *1948* from *ALL of Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem *(pay attention to the word Jewish, not Armenian, German or the fourth Quarter. No one from the other three Quarters of Jerusalem were attacked and then expelled ) * AND from ALL of Judea and Samaria.
> *
> The UN partition was NOT about clearing Arabs from Jewish Land.   You do not seem to be aware, or care that a huge number of Arabs stayed in Independent Israel, because the Jewish leaders did not attack them and demand expulsion, but actually asked to stay, be it in Jaffa, Haifa, or anywhere else.
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs who were expelled during the war started by the Arab League were the ones attacking Jews and wanting them dead.
> 
> What country would not expel those who wish their population to be dead and their country destroyed?
> 
> There are Millions of Arabs living in Israel because they did not raise arms agains the Jews but chose to be a part of the new country.
> 
> Go tell your conspiracy theories somewhere where no one will catch up with all the lies you seem to enjoy telling.
Click to expand...

 
*I'm sure much of what you've said here is correct, and I want to believe you. I'm not an expert. I'm merely paraphrasing the analysis of author, Charles Townshend, in his book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction.*


----------



## NathanCross

Shusha said:


> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with everything Sixties has already said.  Just want to emphasize your use of language and how it is used to claim false things as true.
> 
> 
> "Terrorism", by definition, is not conducted against military targets.  The correct term for military force used against military targets is "war".  As in:  _Israeli warfare, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets.  It won-over the Jewish people and defeated all opponents.  _
> You specifically detail the British, but are deliberately vague about "all opponents".  The other opponents were also specific.  Why did you apply a vague term rather than a specific one, if not to hide who the other opponents were?
> You use the term "military targets" but fail to explain what these targets were.  Why do you leave this part out, if not to hide the nature of those military targets?
> "Ethnic-cleansing" is a common charge against Israel, but can be proven patently false on two grounds.  The first is the nature of an ethnic conflict where two peoples are vying for the same territory and the other the obvious fact that there are plenty of Arabs in Israel.  On the other hand, virtually no Jews remain in ANY territories or nations controlled by Arabs.  (And that's ALL Arabs, not just the ones actually in the conflict.)
> You tie "clear Arabs from Jewish lands" to the partition as though it was the _partition_ which was the event which caused Jewish military action.  You deliberately leave out (hide) the true cause of the conflict -- which was the attacking Arab armies.
> Then you use language which deliberately holds the Jewish people and Jewish State (and only the Jews) accountable for the continued conflict and excuse continued Arab belligerence.
Click to expand...


*You're addicted to defining one's terms and parsing words. If the moral defense of Israel depends on such nonsense, she's in big trouble. Define that -- "big trouble". 

P.S., Yes, Israelis engaged in TERRORISM, prior to 1948. Define the Stern Gang, Irgun, and Freedom Fighters for Israel. DEFINE THEM, PROFESSOR.*


----------



## Shusha

NathanCross said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with everything Sixties has already said.  Just want to emphasize your use of language and how it is used to claim false things as true.
> 
> 
> "Terrorism", by definition, is not conducted against military targets.  The correct term for military force used against military targets is "war".  As in:  _Israeli warfare, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets.  It won-over the Jewish people and defeated all opponents.  _
> You specifically detail the British, but are deliberately vague about "all opponents".  The other opponents were also specific.  Why did you apply a vague term rather than a specific one, if not to hide who the other opponents were?
> You use the term "military targets" but fail to explain what these targets were.  Why do you leave this part out, if not to hide the nature of those military targets?
> "Ethnic-cleansing" is a common charge against Israel, but can be proven patently false on two grounds.  The first is the nature of an ethnic conflict where two peoples are vying for the same territory and the other the obvious fact that there are plenty of Arabs in Israel.  On the other hand, virtually no Jews remain in ANY territories or nations controlled by Arabs.  (And that's ALL Arabs, not just the ones actually in the conflict.)
> You tie "clear Arabs from Jewish lands" to the partition as though it was the _partition_ which was the event which caused Jewish military action.  You deliberately leave out (hide) the true cause of the conflict -- which was the attacking Arab armies.
> Then you use language which deliberately holds the Jewish people and Jewish State (and only the Jews) accountable for the continued conflict and excuse continued Arab belligerence.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're addicted to defining one's terms and parsing words. If the moral defense of Israel depends on such nonsense, she's in big trouble. Define that -- "big trouble".
> 
> P.S., Yes, Israelis engaged in TERRORISM, prior to 1948. Define the Stern Gang, Irgun, and Freedom Fighters for Israel. DEFINE THEM, PROFESSOR.*
Click to expand...


Its what I do.  I'm a writer.  And I know things.


----------



## Sixties Fan

NathanCross said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NathanCross said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, was precise, and hit mostly military targets. It won-over the Jewish people, and defeated all opponents. It was followed by Israeli ethnic-cleansing in 1948, when partition was announced by the U.N., to clear Arabs from Jewish land. Triumphant, Israeli violence aside, when the PLO launched its own terrorist campaign in the West, during the 1970s, Israel began to reap what had sown.*
> 
> 
> 
> So much garbage.
> 
> Jews were defending themselves from endless riots and attacks from 1920 on, when JEWS and not Arabs were being systematically cleansed out of *ALL of Gaza - 1920,* A*LL of TransJordan - 1925*,* All of Hebron - 1929*, and then in *1948* from *ALL of Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem *(pay attention to the word Jewish, not Armenian, German or the fourth Quarter. No one from the other three Quarters of Jerusalem were attacked and then expelled ) * AND from ALL of Judea and Samaria.
> *
> The UN partition was NOT about clearing Arabs from Jewish Land.   You do not seem to be aware, or care that a huge number of Arabs stayed in Independent Israel, because the Jewish leaders did not attack them and demand expulsion, but actually asked to stay, be it in Jaffa, Haifa, or anywhere else.
> 
> The Palestinian Arabs who were expelled during the war started by the Arab League were the ones attacking Jews and wanting them dead.
> 
> What country would not expel those who wish their population to be dead and their country destroyed?
> 
> There are Millions of Arabs living in Israel because they did not raise arms agains the Jews but chose to be a part of the new country.
> 
> Go tell your conspiracy theories somewhere where no one will catch up with all the lies you seem to enjoy telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm sure much of what you've said here is correct, and I want to believe you. I'm not an expert. I'm merely paraphrasing the analysis of author, Charles Townshend, in his book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction.*
Click to expand...

No, you are most definitely Not An Expert.

You are focused on one author and book, and one author and book Only to attempt to make your position.

There is no such thing as "One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".  Some moron came up with that, or it wasn't what someone meant.

In the case of the Jews and their homeland, the Jews have ALWAYS been the freedom fighters against the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, Muslims, Crusaders, the Turks and the British.

Why?  Because it is their ancient homeland, where they came from, defended many times and continued to live on for at least the past 4000 years.

To call any other group in that land as Freedom fighters is an illusion.

Why?  Because any and all of those groups were invaders to the land the Jews made theirs (because that is where they came from), just as the British and other European countries were invaders to the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, etc, or the way some Kurdish tribe first invaded the Land of Israel, or later on some Arab tribes did as well, and later on the Turks.  Not only many parts of Asia, but all of North Africa and Europe.

So, are all of these invaders of the last 2000 years also freedom fighters?  Against the indigenous people of the region they invaded to begin with?

How can that be?

There are clear definitions as to who is a freedom fighter and who is an invader or even a terrorist and the reasons why those words and definitions exist.

You seem to like to blur the whole thing and make the Arab Palestinians the Freedom Fighters, and the Jewish Palestinians the invaders and terrorists.

The same goes for the British, where you do not know,  or care,
what their role was in the Mandate for Palestine, and how they willingly failed miserably towards that goal.

Or why the Mandate for Palestine was the only one the British did not care at all to live up to the word they had given in order to accomplish re-creating the Jewish sovereignty over the Ancient Jewish Homeland.

You wish to believe that the Arabs and the British were the victims of Jews who had no rights to the land?  Is that it?

So be it.

Believe what you wish, because regardless of any and all you will continue to believe.... the Jewish people  (and many non Jews) do know the truth of what happened in the past century, and they very much know Who is Who in the whole story.

You have nothing better than that sentence you have repeated on other posts before?  Which we have dismantled before as well?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


Do try to bring people who actually know what they are talking about and not simply repeating the same old, lets delegitimize the Jews at any cost, blah, blah.....

You enjoy and insist in bringing this worthless people as "proof" of one thing or another about Israel and the Jews.

And you, like others, refuse to fact check anything they say.

This guy did:


Jacob F Suslovich
1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
September 5, 2017
Format: Paperback
This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel


----------



## rylah

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do try to bring people who actually know what they are talking about and not simply repeating the same old, lets delegitimize the Jews at any cost, blah, blah.....
> 
> You enjoy and insist in bringing this worthless people as "proof" of one thing or another about Israel and the Jews.
> 
> And you, like others, refuse to fact check anything they say.
> 
> This guy did:
> 
> 
> Jacob F Suslovich
> 1.0 out of 5 starsThis book has been fact checked. A history book ...
> September 5, 2017
> Format: Paperback
> This book has been fact checked. A history book should after all try to present facts with a reasonable degree of objectivity and fairness. There was indeed one statement in found in one document by a small splinter group opposing the Marshall Plan for Europe’s postwar reconstruction But that group was not named or identified and was certainly not the Jewish leadership or the Jewish Agency. This tactic is used by the author over and over again. If even one Zionist said or did anything negative, throughout the entire period 1917-1948, the author labels it as official mainstream Zionist policy. Actions by Jews are cited out of context. If A shoots and kills B that seems to be murder; but not if B is first trying to kill A. The author finds any possible act of violence of Jews and highlights it without describing the context. In short this book in neither objective or fair.
> 
> Amazon.com: Customer reviews: State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel
Click to expand...


The guy basically tries to define any ethnic self determination to racism. Such demagoguery makes all other nation states non-legit, which leaves us only with the US and the Russian Federation.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  rylah, et al,

First, we all must allow Tom Suarez _(a __theorist on __‘Zionist terrorism’)_ his due and freedom to express his ideas _(whether we agree with them or not)_. 

Within his core premise, Tom Suarez states in effect that → 

1) The International Community does not want the conflict to end on the artificially constructed narrative that replaces the truth.  HE uses the phrase "an ethnic nationalist settler movement" called Zionism.  And Zionism wants to create an ethnically pure state on another's sovereign territory _(other peoples land__)_.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• AND •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••​2)  The International Community wants to project the "illusion" that the two sides are negotiating _(sending an image of a Peace Processes)_.  That the conflict is basically a false image because the scales are tilted in favor of the Israelis.  That the conditions are unfair because the Israelis have the support of a Super Power, the greater economic pull, the more sophisticated weapons, and the greater political clout → and the Arab Palestinians have nothing.​


rylah said:


> The guy [*Tom Suarez*] basically tries to define any ethnic self-determination to racism. Such demagoguery makes all other nation states non-legit, which leaves us only with the US and the Russian Federation.


*(COMMENT)*

Tom Suarez said NOTHING new.  HE was basically attempting to discredit Israel as "The Jewish State."  And HE does it in a way that makes it seem that The Jewish State is NOT the established Jewish State, → and should not be established.

Both sides campaign and wage a propaganda war against the other.  One of the passages that Tom Saurez makes is that HE claims the Jews are keeping the Arab Palestinians in "Internment Camps."  How absurd_*!*_  There is no Arab Palestinian Population involved in the conflict that is NOT in an Arab State, or that borders and Arab State.  Tom Saurez does not mention this.  WHY_*!*_  Because it would reveal that the Arab world is a party to the containment of the Arab Palestinian people.

HE is what HE is...  HE is out to make a buck and this is how HE does it...

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Rehmani

Coyote said:


> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *


I will say when people were living peacefully side by side in holy land for 900 years, then why that peace destroyed by the elite forces.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> I will say when people were living peacefully side by side in holy land for 900 years, then why that peace destroyed by the elite forces.
Click to expand...

Why are you so ignorant as to how life was like in the Holy Land for the 900 you are referring to?

Why do you not know that Jews were being always attacked at one time or another by one Muslim group or another, all of their properties stolen, the women raped, many murdered, their homes destroyed?

There is no place on the planet where there was "peace" between the conquerors and those they had subjugated.

Arabs and Turks had conquered the area since the 7th century and they did not always treat the indigenous Jews well.  Mostly badly.
Pogroms (massacres) happened every now and then against the Jews.

Please live in the reality of what has happened in any part of the world, and not what some people wish that others believe about it.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *
> 
> 
> 
> I will say when people were living peacefully side by side in holy land for 900 years, then why that peace destroyed by the elite forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so ignorant as to how life was like in the Holy Land for the 900 you are referring to?
> 
> Why do you not know that Jews were being always attacked at one time or another by one Muslim group or another, all of their properties stolen, the women raped, many murdered, their homes destroyed?
> 
> There is no place on the planet where there was "peace" between the conquerors and those they had subjugated.
> 
> Arabs and Turks had conquered the area since the 7th century and they did not always treat the indigenous Jews well.  Mostly badly.
> Pogroms (massacres) happened every now and then against the Jews.
> 
> Please live in the reality of what has happened in any part of the world, and not what some people wish that others believe about it.
Click to expand...

Sorry sir/madam you should know that there was no jew left in holy land after the Jesus PBUH crucified by the jews and mostly jews refuge in Persian empire. It is only become possible for jews to reside in Jerusalem again when Salahuddin Ayouby (Salatin) took the control of Holy Land and he pardon to all christian and accommodate to jews as well and because his action only peace lasted in Holy Land for 900 years.


----------



## Shusha

The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.


And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.
Click to expand...

Please, do yourself a favor.
You have no knowledge of what you are posting.
We have no idea at all, where you read or learned any of what you posted, but it is all lies to make the Jewish Nation/People look like the worst people in the world.

The Jewish people are the indigenous people of ancient Canaan.
They are the ones who have had a continuous history on the land
for the past 3800 years as Jews.  Not to say that they were not pagans before that and then turned to Judaism.

Jews have never been a race.

I can only imagine where you have read or heard any of this distortions about the history of the Jews and their presence on their ancient homeland.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.
Click to expand...


Now you are just being ridiculous.  The Jewish people originated in that place.  The Jewish people have been in that place for thousands and thousands of year.  It is their homeland.  Arguing otherwise makes you look foolish.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, do yourself a favor.
> You have no knowledge of what you are posting.
> We have no idea at all, where you read or learned any of what you posted, but it is all lies to make the Jewish Nation/People look like the worst people in the world.
> 
> The Jewish people are the indigenous people of ancient Canaan.
> They are the ones who have had a continuous history on the land
> for the past 3800 years as Jews.  Not to say that they were not pagans before that and then turned to Judaism.
> 
> Jews have never been a race.
> 
> I can only imagine where you have read or heard any of this distortions about the history of the Jews and their presence on their ancient homeland.
Click to expand...

You really don't want to learn truth.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are just being ridiculous.  The Jewish people originated in that place.  The Jewish people have been in that place for thousands and thousands of year.  It is their homeland.  Arguing otherwise makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

This poster gets their "facts" from the same place as othes.
Conspiracy theory sources.
Nothing but a waste of time.
Nothing will change their mind.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, do yourself a favor.
> You have no knowledge of what you are posting.
> We have no idea at all, where you read or learned any of what you posted, but it is all lies to make the Jewish Nation/People look like the worst people in the world.
> 
> The Jewish people are the indigenous people of ancient Canaan.
> They are the ones who have had a continuous history on the land
> for the past 3800 years as Jews.  Not to say that they were not pagans before that and then turned to Judaism.
> 
> Jews have never been a race.
> 
> I can only imagine where you have read or heard any of this distortions about the history of the Jews and their presence on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't want to learn truth.
Click to expand...

Did you come to these threads to discuss or to just spread your conspiracy theories?

Because all you have shown us, so far, are nothing but conspiracy theories about the Jewish people.

Attempts to change the history of the Jewish People is a very ugly thing.

Be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan said:


> Attempts to change the history of the Jewish People is a very ugly thing.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.




I second this.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, do yourself a favor.
> You have no knowledge of what you are posting.
> We have no idea at all, where you read or learned any of what you posted, but it is all lies to make the Jewish Nation/People look like the worst people in the world.
> 
> The Jewish people are the indigenous people of ancient Canaan.
> They are the ones who have had a continuous history on the land
> for the past 3800 years as Jews.  Not to say that they were not pagans before that and then turned to Judaism.
> 
> Jews have never been a race.
> 
> I can only imagine where you have read or heard any of this distortions about the history of the Jews and their presence on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't want to learn truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you come to these threads to discuss or to just spread your conspiracy theories?
> 
> Because all you have shown us, so far, are nothing but conspiracy theories about the Jewish people.
> 
> Attempts to change the history of the Jewish People is a very ugly thing.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

Look facts can not be change. Jews are foreigners in holy land they came to holy land with Abraham PBUH and Loot AS from Iraq while Pagan Arab already there as a native race of the holy land. 
Accept the truth and talk about the truth I feel proud. You should shame by ignoring the facts.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the only time there can be peace in the Jewish homeland is when the Jewish people are under colonial, foreign rule by Arab Muslims is reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, do yourself a favor.
> You have no knowledge of what you are posting.
> We have no idea at all, where you read or learned any of what you posted, but it is all lies to make the Jewish Nation/People look like the worst people in the world.
> 
> The Jewish people are the indigenous people of ancient Canaan.
> They are the ones who have had a continuous history on the land
> for the past 3800 years as Jews.  Not to say that they were not pagans before that and then turned to Judaism.
> 
> Jews have never been a race.
> 
> I can only imagine where you have read or heard any of this distortions about the history of the Jews and their presence on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't want to learn truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you come to these threads to discuss or to just spread your conspiracy theories?
> 
> Because all you have shown us, so far, are nothing but conspiracy theories about the Jewish people.
> 
> Attempts to change the history of the Jewish People is a very ugly thing.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look facts can not be change. Jews are foreigners in holy land they came to holy land with Abraham PBUH and Loot AS from Iraq while Pagan Arab already there as a native race of the holy land.
> Accept the truth and talk about the truth I feel proud. You should shame by ignoring the facts.
Click to expand...

You and others are the ones attempting to change the facts of history.

Pagan Arabs, as a native "race" of Ancient Canaan.
All the indigenous people of ancient Canaan disagree with you, because none of the tribes were Arab.

Pagan Arabs lived in Arabian Peninsula .  Which is why that Peninsula has that name.  And most lived in that Peninsula until Mohammad introduced Islam in the 7th century CE.


I am waiting to read, from a verifiable source, that what you post is the truth.

So far, nothing.

In other words, you want your words to pass for truth and nothing else.

Passing something for truth is not truth.

Learn that.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then you should know that jew are the foreigners and came with Abraham PBUH, Loot AS and reside in Syria not Holy Land and not a single Prohet of Jews either born or visited Jerusalem while Arab were already there for thousands of years as Pagan. Similarly race of Abraham PBUH were Pagan too. And after Yqoob PBUH, one of his son called Yahouda took over and started race called jew means most of jew don't follow the religion and don't go to temple.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, do yourself a favor.
> You have no knowledge of what you are posting.
> We have no idea at all, where you read or learned any of what you posted, but it is all lies to make the Jewish Nation/People look like the worst people in the world.
> 
> The Jewish people are the indigenous people of ancient Canaan.
> They are the ones who have had a continuous history on the land
> for the past 3800 years as Jews.  Not to say that they were not pagans before that and then turned to Judaism.
> 
> Jews have never been a race.
> 
> I can only imagine where you have read or heard any of this distortions about the history of the Jews and their presence on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't want to learn truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you come to these threads to discuss or to just spread your conspiracy theories?
> 
> Because all you have shown us, so far, are nothing but conspiracy theories about the Jewish people.
> 
> Attempts to change the history of the Jewish People is a very ugly thing.
> 
> Be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look facts can not be change. Jews are foreigners in holy land they came to holy land with Abraham PBUH and Loot AS from Iraq while Pagan Arab already there as a native race of the holy land.
> Accept the truth and talk about the truth I feel proud. You should shame by ignoring the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and others are the ones attempting to change the facts of history.
> 
> Pagan Arabs, as a native "race" of Ancient Canaan.
> All the indigenous people of ancient Canaan disagree with you, because none of the tribes were Arab.
> 
> Pagan Arabs lived in Arabian Peninsula .  Which is why that Peninsula has that name.  And most lived in that Peninsula until Mohammad introduced Islam in the 7th century CE.
> 
> 
> I am waiting to read, from a verifiable source, that what you post is the truth.
> 
> So far, nothing.
> 
> In other words, you want your words to pass for truth and nothing else.
> 
> Passing something for truth is not truth.
> 
> Learn that.
Click to expand...

Because you are there to spread lie.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Madenah News, by Dr. Mustafa Yousef Alddawi, to mark the centennial of the end of World War I, is one of the most absurd things I've ever read in Arabic media. And that's saying a lot.

"There is no doubt that Palestine was the greatest victim of the First World War," it begins.

During WWI, Palestine had a population of 800,000.

The number of people killed during the war was between 15-19 million.

The Ottoman Empire, Germany, France, the British Empire, Russia, Italy and Austria each lost more people than the entire population of Palestine.

Obviously he is claiming that the division of the Arab world by the victors of the war, which included allowing Jews to return to a sliver of land where they are the indigenous people, is the most catastrophic thing to ever happen to anyone, ever.

Palestinians are the masters of making everything about them. They are the biggest victims of the Holocaust, they are the biggest victims of both world wars, they are the biggest victims of "colonialism," they are the world's biggest victims, period.

They actually used to be able to make headway with these arguments in the Arab world. Those days are gone.

(full article online)

"Palestine was the biggest victim of World War I" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]


Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945


You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.


----------



## Slyhunter

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.
Click to expand...

The Christian and Jewish holy sites are older than the Muslim ones. You Arabs haven't destroyed them all yet.


----------



## Rehmani

Slyhunter said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian and Jewish holy sites are older than the Muslim ones. You Arabs haven't destroyed them all yet.
Click to expand...

Wrong; when Muslim took over holy land, there was no jew and neither jew sites were there. And only Christian were there and there sites and all  Christian pardon and their sites protected as they link to Great Prophet Jesus PBUH we are waiting for him PBUH as a Muslim and His PBUH arrival expected soon in near future.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.
Click to expand...


Conquest, rape, murder, expulsion, pogroms - is what Muslims call _"accommodation"_?


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian and Jewish holy sites are older than the Muslim ones. You Arabs haven't destroyed them all yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong; when Muslim took over holy land, there was no jew and neither jew sites were there. And only Christian were there and there sites and all  Christian pardon and their sites protected as they link to Great Prophet Jesus PBUH we are waiting for him PBUH as a Muslim and His PBUH arrival expected soon in near future.
Click to expand...


Typical Islamist idiocy.
Jews were involved in every key Muslim battle in the Holy Land.
Written in Muslim history all over.

Almost everything that later became connected to Islam in the Holy Land is built on top of Jewish sites.

Your taqqiyyah is a failure - Muslims forever brag about conquering the land, and can't stand the fact that Jews are the only nation in the entire middle east that managed to regain independence from Islam.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conquest, rape, murder, expulsion, pogroms - is what Muslims call _"accommodation"_?
Click to expand...

Propaganda with full of lies.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian and Jewish holy sites are older than the Muslim ones. You Arabs haven't destroyed them all yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong; when Muslim took over holy land, there was no jew and neither jew sites were there. And only Christian were there and there sites and all  Christian pardon and their sites protected as they link to Great Prophet Jesus PBUH we are waiting for him PBUH as a Muslim and His PBUH arrival expected soon in near future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Islamist idiocy.
> Jews were involved in every key Muslim battle in the Holy Land.
> Written in Muslim history all over.
> 
> Almost everything that later became connected to Islam in the Holy Land is built on top of Jewish sites.
> 
> Your taqqiyyah is a failure - Muslims forever brag about conquering the land, and can't stand the fact that Jews are the only nation in the entire middle east that managed to regain independence from Islam.
Click to expand...

Jew are master to turn lie into truth by speaking lie 1000 time that other feeling like it is true that's exactly what propaganda does.


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conquest, rape, murder, expulsion, pogroms - is what Muslims call _"accommodation"_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda with full of lies.
Click to expand...


Why is it?

I didn't read the small print, btw.


----------



## rylah

Mindful said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Just a reminder that, it has never been about Israel,  it has been always about Jews and how to blame Jews for everything.
> Which is what Muslims have been doing for the past 1400 years.
> No memory that no such things occurred before Islam was created in Arabia and Jews were just another people living there ]
> 
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Remembering the Libyan riots of 1945
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. There is no war between jew and Muslim until Jew occupied holy land and pushed out Muslim into camps around. In fact Muslim are the one who accommodate Jews in Holy Land along side with Christian and Muslim for 900 years. I will say this is betray by Jews against Muslim who provide jew to shelter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conquest, rape, murder, expulsion, pogroms - is what Muslims call _"accommodation"_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda with full of lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it?
> 
> I didn't read the small print, btw.
Click to expand...


Muslims will never dare talk about the Arab pogroms against Jews.


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ Zionists, truly European looking, ALL of them.  Not indigenous to the land of Israel, and not Jewish ........ at all   ]

Let my photos go…


----------



## Sixties Fan

" For the purpose of establishing the mosque, which he dedicated to himself, Hassan Beck employed a lot of forced laborers (a custom in the Ottoman Empire), which he ordered to work day and night to complete the task quickly.

The effort was so great that many of them were injured or even died during the construction.
...
Construction materials were taken from residents of the area who were forced to sign that they give the materials as a gift.

During the mosque construction,* Ottoman army soldiers kidnapped Jewish youths from Tel Aviv and especially from the “Yemenite vineyards” *for forced construction of the mosque.

Two of these young men were: Zechariah (Yahya) Valani and Shalom (Salem) Massuari.

Hassan Bek did not finish the construction of the mosque before he left his post in March 1916. The Supreme Muslim Council, which understood the importance of the mosque for the Arab national cause, invested the necessary funds and the construction of the mosque ended in 1923."


Officially, the Ottoman empire ended slavery in the late 19th century but I cannot find any other source at this time of forced laborers for Islamic or state projects.

If accurate, this is a disturbing chapter in history that has not been researched fully.


(full article online)

Ottomans kidnapped Jewish youths to help build a mosque in Jaffa! ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> [ Zionists, truly European looking, ALL of them.  Not indigenous to the land of Israel, and not Jewish ........ at all   ]
> 
> Let my photos go…


Neither jews native to land of Arab..... and Abraham pbuh wasn't jew at all when he pbuh migrated from Iraq.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Zionists, truly European looking, ALL of them.  Not indigenous to the land of Israel, and not Jewish ........ at all   ]
> 
> Let my photos go…
> 
> 
> 
> Neither jews native to land of Arab..... and Abraham pbuh wasn't jew at all when he pbuh migrated from Iraq.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure You understand what "native means".
Because about 1 million *native Jews* *of the middle east *were expelled by Arabs from countries in which their continuous existence predates Islam by a thousand years.

Communities of Jews in Arab countries across the middle east were among the most ancient native populations in recorded history, until most of them gathered in Israel,
exactly what did Abraham our father.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Zionists, truly European looking, ALL of them.  Not indigenous to the land of Israel, and not Jewish ........ at all   ]
> 
> Let my photos go…
> 
> 
> 
> Neither jews native to land of Arab..... and Abraham pbuh wasn't jew at all when he pbuh migrated from Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure You understand what "native means".
> Because about 1 million *native Jews* *of the middle east *were expelled by Arabs from countries in which their continuous existence predates Islam by a thousand years.
> 
> Communities of Jews in Arab countries across the middle east were among the most ancient native populations in recorded history, until most of them gathered in Israel,
> exactly what did Abraham our father.
Click to expand...

But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.

first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?



Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.

Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!

Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.


----------



## rylah

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
Click to expand...


My tribe my rules! -


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
Click to expand...

No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My tribe my rules! -
Click to expand...

Nonsense


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
Click to expand...



Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
Click to expand...

You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?

If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?
> 
> If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?
Click to expand...


That wasn't the question. The question was where the Jewish people are indigenous (aka native). 

But since you asked the correct answer to your question is US AND possibly several other nationalities depending on his parents and grandparents nationalities.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?
> 
> If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question. The question was where the Jewish people are indigenous (aka native).
> 
> But since you asked the correct answer to your question is US AND possibly several other nationalities depending on his parents and grandparents nationalities.
Click to expand...

So, if I am a Christian, and Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, then I am native to Palestine?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?
> 
> If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question. The question was where the Jewish people are indigenous (aka native).
> 
> But since you asked the correct answer to your question is US AND possibly several other nationalities depending on his parents and grandparents nationalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if I am a Christian, and Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, then I am native to Palestine?
Click to expand...


You just keep moving those goalposts, dear.  

But since you asked, the ONLY surviving culture which originated in the territory in question is the Jewish culture, therefore unless you are Jewish, you would not be native to Israel, Judea and Samaria, not matter what you call it.


----------



## Shusha

And you still haven't answered the question.  Where is the place in the world where the Jewish people are the indigenous peoples?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?
> 
> If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question. The question was where the Jewish people are indigenous (aka native).
> 
> But since you asked the correct answer to your question is US AND possibly several other nationalities depending on his parents and grandparents nationalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if I am a Christian, and Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, then I am native to Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep moving those goalposts, dear.
> 
> But since you asked, the ONLY surviving culture which originated in the territory in question is the Jewish culture, therefore unless you are Jewish, you would not be native to Israel, Judea and Samaria, not matter what you call it.
Click to expand...

Christianity is not a surviving culture?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Christianity is not a surviving culture?



It is not.


----------



## montelatici

Judaism is a religion Christianity is a religion.  A Jew can be from anywhere just as a Christian can.  There are even Chinese Jews and Chinese Christians, believe it or not.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
Click to expand...

Lol. Native from nowhere. 
You were minority in Iraq and your are minority in Palestine and you are always live or invade other people land.


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you should know that your father PBUH was not a jew at all.
> 
> first you have to decide who is jew? Second you have to debate that who is native on Arab land, Arab or jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?
> 
> If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?
Click to expand...

I agree jew are confused and confused with evil mind.


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, that. WE already have decided who is a Jew and who is not a Jew.  You, as a non-Jew, have no say in the matter.  Period.  This is not open to discussion outside the Jewish community.
> 
> Further, If you want to make an objective declaration that the founders of religious faiths were not themselves followers of the religion they founded, that Abraham was not a Jew, that JC was not a Christian and that Muhammed was not a Muslim, fine.  One can't be both the founder of a faith and a follower.  But who cares?!  Why should this matter?!
> 
> Finally, let's discuss how any land becomes land belonging to a specific people and thus "Arab land" or "Jewish land" and in particular how people become "native" to that land.  From an objective perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder why jew always has problem because they don't accept the fact and enforce their stupid ideas. If Abraham pbuh not jew means jew have authority.
> Second you cannot invade others land and called yourself native and neither you were native in Iraq nor in Palestine.
> And you can not run history as you want by telling leis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?
> 
> If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question. The question was where the Jewish people are indigenous (aka native).
> 
> But since you asked the correct answer to your question is US AND possibly several other nationalities depending on his parents and grandparents nationalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if I am a Christian, and Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, then I am native to Palestine?
Click to expand...

That is the simple thing, jew are failing to understand or refusing the fact as they always do.


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. Out of curiousity, where ARE Jews native to?
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?
> 
> If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question. The question was where the Jewish people are indigenous (aka native).
> 
> But since you asked the correct answer to your question is US AND possibly several other nationalities depending on his parents and grandparents nationalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if I am a Christian, and Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, then I am native to Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep moving those goalposts, dear.
> 
> But since you asked, the ONLY surviving culture which originated in the territory in question is the Jewish culture, therefore unless you are Jewish, you would not be native to Israel, Judea and Samaria, not matter what you call it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity is not a surviving culture?
Click to expand...

But jew are struggling to survive as Masaya is not coming 3000 years has been passed, instead Jesus PBUH is coming. Its a final warning for jew to adopt the right path and complete the line of prophet. And give up their nonsense which is full lies.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Re


Rehmani said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are so confused. I am a Christian. I was born in America. My parents were born in America. Most of my grandparents were born in America. (One of my grandfathers was born in Germany.) What is my nationality?
> 
> If a Jew was born in America and his parents were born in America and his grandparents were born in America, what is his nationality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question. The question was where the Jewish people are indigenous (aka native).
> 
> But since you asked the correct answer to your question is US AND possibly several other nationalities depending on his parents and grandparents nationalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if I am a Christian, and Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, then I am native to Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep moving those goalposts, dear.
> 
> But since you asked, the ONLY surviving culture which originated in the territory in question is the Jewish culture, therefore unless you are Jewish, you would not be native to Israel, Judea and Samaria, not matter what you call it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity is not a surviving culture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But jew are struggling to survive as Masaya is not coming 3000 years has been passed, instead Jesus PBUH is coming. Its a final warning for jew to adopt the right path and complete the line of prophet. And give up their nonsense which is full lies.
Click to expand...

None of your posts discuss the title of this thread.
Please go to the proper communities and threads to discuss religion, who is indigenous of any place or anything else not involving what this thread is about.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Native from nowhere ... and you are always live ... other people land.



So, the Jewish people are always living on someone else's land and have no homeland of their own?  Interesting.  How would you formulate this as an objective standard applied to all people?  What is the criteria for determining which peoples have a homeland?  Or are there special rules for Jews?

You don't actually have to answer that.  I know you have special rules for Jews because, well .... Jews and all.  This is the wrong place for religious discussions, but since you brought it up ...  your toxic conceptualization of Jews is a direct result of toxic interpretations and understandings of religious theology within Islam.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Re
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question. The question was where the Jewish people are indigenous (aka native).
> 
> But since you asked the correct answer to your question is US AND possibly several other nationalities depending on his parents and grandparents nationalities.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I am a Christian, and Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, then I am native to Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep moving those goalposts, dear.
> 
> But since you asked, the ONLY surviving culture which originated in the territory in question is the Jewish culture, therefore unless you are Jewish, you would not be native to Israel, Judea and Samaria, not matter what you call it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity is not a surviving culture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But jew are struggling to survive as Masaya is not coming 3000 years has been passed, instead Jesus PBUH is coming. Its a final warning for jew to adopt the right path and complete the line of prophet. And give up their nonsense which is full lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of your posts discuss the title of this thread.
> Please go to the proper communities and threads to discuss religion, who is indigenous of any place or anything else not involving what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

If none of my posts discuss the title, its not me, its you who is not going any where but spreading lies. Next time I will ask to only those posters who are amateur, to participate the discussion.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Native from nowhere ... and you are always live ... other people land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Jewish people are always living on someone else's land and have no homeland of their own?  Interesting.  How would you formulate this as an objective standard applied to all people?  What is the criteria for determining which peoples have a homeland?  Or are there special rules for Jews?
> 
> You don't actually have to answer that.  I know you have special rules for Jews because, well .... Jews and all.  This is the wrong place for religious discussions, but since you brought it up ...  your toxic conceptualization of Jews is a direct result of toxic interpretations and understandings of religious theology within Islam.
Click to expand...

Then you should tell me, whose land jew were living on if not Arab,Roman,Persian,Christian and Muslim Land.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Then you should tell me, whose land jew were living on if not Arab,Roman,Persian,Christian and Muslim Land.



Your argument seems to that rights to land were transferred successively from Roman, Persian, Christian then Muslim through conquest, invasion and colonization.  If we follow your logic, the land has been conquered, invaded and colonized by Jews now, so I guess its Jewish land now.

That said, I do not adhere to that argument.  I believe that people who originated on a particular land have existing rights that can not be abrogated by conquest, invasion and colonization.  

The Jewish people originated somewhere and had a homeland somewhere.  And you and all the world know where that is.  Pretending the sky isn't really blue just makes you look foolish.


----------



## Slyhunter

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should tell me, whose land jew were living on if not Arab,Roman,Persian,Christian and Muslim Land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to that rights to land were transferred successively from Roman, Persian, Christian then Muslim through conquest, invasion and colonization.  If we follow your logic, the land has been conquered, invaded and colonized by Jews now, so I guess its Jewish land now.
> 
> That said, I do not adhere to that argument.  I believe that people who originated on a particular land have existing rights that can not be abrogated by conquest, invasion and colonization.
> 
> The Jewish people originated somewhere and had a homeland somewhere.  And you and all the world know where that is.  Pretending the sky isn't really blue just makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

No land belongs to the original inhabitants. It's called evolution. You can't label a single spot on this planet that the current inhabitants being the original inhabitants there.


----------



## Sixties Fan

From 1947 to 2018 – the miracles of November 29


----------



## Rehmani

Slyhunter said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should tell me, whose land jew were living on if not Arab,Roman,Persian,Christian and Muslim Land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to that rights to land were transferred successively from Roman, Persian, Christian then Muslim through conquest, invasion and colonization.  If we follow your logic, the land has been conquered, invaded and colonized by Jews now, so I guess its Jewish land now.
> 
> That said, I do not adhere to that argument.  I believe that people who originated on a particular land have existing rights that can not be abrogated by conquest, invasion and colonization.
> 
> The Jewish people originated somewhere and had a homeland somewhere.  And you and all the world know where that is.  Pretending the sky isn't really blue just makes you look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No land belongs to the original inhabitants. It's called evolution. You can't label a single spot on this planet that the current inhabitants being the original inhabitants there.
Click to expand...

Its a real life but jew are changing it by speaking constant lies. Whole world knows its a Arab land by 10 of thousands of years. But they can claim their land in a Iraqi village, where from Abraham PBUH was migrated.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should tell me, whose land jew were living on if not Arab,Roman,Persian,Christian and Muslim Land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to that rights to land were transferred successively from Roman, Persian, Christian then Muslim through conquest, invasion and colonization.  If we follow your logic, the land has been conquered, invaded and colonized by Jews now, so I guess its Jewish land now.
> 
> That said, I do not adhere to that argument.  I believe that people who originated on a particular land have existing rights that can not be abrogated by conquest, invasion and colonization.
> 
> The Jewish people originated somewhere and had a homeland somewhere.  And you and all the world know where that is.  Pretending the sky isn't really blue just makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

Exactly, your stupid philosophy applying to you and jew. Please don't pretend you can not change the sky by speaking constant lies.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should tell me, whose land jew were living on if not Arab,Roman,Persian,Christian and Muslim Land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to that rights to land were transferred successively from Roman, Persian, Christian then Muslim through conquest, invasion and colonization.  If we follow your logic, the land has been conquered, invaded and colonized by Jews now, so I guess its Jewish land now.
> 
> That said, I do not adhere to that argument.  I believe that people who originated on a particular land have existing rights that can not be abrogated by conquest, invasion and colonization.
> 
> The Jewish people originated somewhere and had a homeland somewhere.  And you and all the world know where that is.  Pretending the sky isn't really blue just makes you look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, your stupid philosophy applying to you and jew. Please don't pretend you can not change the sky by speaking constant lies.
Click to expand...

You continue to not discuss the issues of this thread.
Please go to the religious community and discuss your beliefs there.


----------



## Sixties Fan

My Right Word: The Arabs Started Shooting on November 30, 1947


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should tell me, whose land jew were living on if not Arab,Roman,Persian,Christian and Muslim Land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to that rights to land were transferred successively from Roman, Persian, Christian then Muslim through conquest, invasion and colonization.  If we follow your logic, the land has been conquered, invaded and colonized by Jews now, so I guess its Jewish land now.
> 
> That said, I do not adhere to that argument.  I believe that people who originated on a particular land have existing rights that can not be abrogated by conquest, invasion and colonization.
> 
> The Jewish people originated somewhere and had a homeland somewhere.  And you and all the world know where that is.  Pretending the sky isn't really blue just makes you look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, your stupid philosophy applying to you and jew. Please don't pretend you can not change the sky by speaking constant lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to not discuss the issues of this thread.
> Please go to the religious community and discuss your beliefs there.
Click to expand...

does it your father's forum? and you want me to go away so you can spreads lies freely.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Yes, so moral that they eagerly destroyed over 50 synagogues within a few weeks of the surrender.

Obviously this is only one person's opinion, but the idea that the surrender of Jews who were cut off from the rest of Israel in 1948 represents the most important moment in Jordanian history betrays a bit of an obsession. Jordan's victory over a few hundred Jews - which was reversed 19 years later - is considered, today, the perhaps biggest event in Jordanian history.

Palestinians have always defined themselves in terms of Israel. Apparently, some Jordanians do as well.

(full article online)

The most important document in Jordanian history: The surrender of the Jews in Jerusalem in 1948 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Starr Forum: 70 Years: Israel-Palestine – Reflections & Forecasts "Looking Back"*

**


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Starr Forum: 70 Years: Israel-Palestine – Reflections & Forecasts "Looking Back"*
> 
> **



I don't understand the point of this video.

Palestine was recognized a Jewish country by US law, the indigenous status of the Jewish nation was recognized in the language of the international law. Israel was founded by a bunch of lawyers who legally represented  the Jewish cause in every step of the realization of Palestine into an independent state called Israel, all according to international law. 

If some academics want to make a buck out of anecdotes I don't think there's anything to discuss, there's no Israeli side represented in this panel anyway. 

Looking forward I can only wish Arab states give their people anywhere the same level of liberty and quality of life as Israel has managed for its Arab citizens in spite of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I don't know any more than you do; maybe even less.  But this is not an impartial panel of experts; but rather a summation of a pro-Arab Palestinian Story.  But before I get on my soapbox, I just want to say that this media presentation was worth the hour (+) it takes to listen to this excessively sympathetic and emotional concern academic advocate for one of the most incompetent, ineffective, corrupt and poorly functioning excuse for a government that has ever graced the sands of the Middle East.  One of the reasons that the Arab Palestiansare at the near bottom of the social and economic development scale is because they listen to these very eloquent yet sadly mistaken expert panels it has ever been my misfortune to waste my time _(which I will never get back and so little left to spend on such dribble)_ listening. 

Remember, this panelist will not be the people that pay the price for the anger they foment on the Two-State Solution (with an Arab State which will probably either collapse under its own weight or become just another mediocre Arab nations.  And that will gradually become a regional destabilizing force that will weaken Israel, with a drama that will playout over Jerusalem because of it. 



rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Starr Forum: 70 Years: Israel-Palestine – Reflections & Forecasts "Looking Back"*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of this video.
> 
> Palestine was recognized a Jewish country by US law, the indigenous status of the Jewish nation was recognized in the language of the international law. Israel was founded by a bunch of lawyers who legally represented  the Jewish cause in every step of the realization of Palestine into an independent state called Israel, all according to international law.
> 
> If some academics want to make a buck out of anecdotes I don't think there's anything to discuss, there's no Israeli side represented in this panel anyway.
> 
> Looking forward I can only wish Arab states give their people anywhere the same level of liberty and quality of life as Israel has managed for its Arab citizens in spite of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This is a foundation for something that has not been done often in history.  They layed the history out, and the interpretation of facts, that blame the outcome on everybody, especially the Jewish _(later Israeli)_ for the raw deal that the Arab Palestinians got.  The latent premise is that there must be a two-state solution with the advantage to the Arab Palestinian.  This is ground zero for opening political support for the destruction of the Jewish National Home. 

The mistake that the panel makes _(in my estimation)_ is that none of them look at the reality.  Israel will never allow the bleeding heart pro-Palestinians to set the conditions today for the demise of Israel at some point in the future.  They appear to be trying to act as chair bound academic that want to foment anger to and to incite violent and ill-advised behavior to the degree that they will attempt to induce the external major Powers to overtake Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Starr Forum: 70 Years: Israel-Palestine – Reflections & Forecasts "Looking Ahead"*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, I don't know any more than you do; maybe even less.  But this is not an impartial panel of experts; but rather a summation of a pro-Arab Palestinian Story.  But before I get on my soapbox, I just want to say that this media presentation was worth the hour (+) it takes to listen to this excessively sympathetic and emotional concern academic advocate for one of the most incompetent, ineffective, corrupt and poorly functioning excuse for a government that has ever graced the sands of the Middle East.  One of the reasons that the Arab Palestiansare at the near bottom of the social and economic development scale is because they listen to these very eloquent yet sadly mistaken expert panels it has ever been my misfortune to waste my time _(which I will never get back and so little left to spend on such dribble)_ listening.
> 
> Remember, this panelist will not be the people that pay the price for the anger they foment on the Two-State Solution (with an Arab State which will probably either collapse under its own weight or become just another mediocre Arab nations.  And that will gradually become a regional destabilizing force that will weaken Israel, with a drama that will playout over Jerusalem because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Starr Forum: 70 Years: Israel-Palestine – Reflections & Forecasts "Looking Back"*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of this video.
> 
> Palestine was recognized a Jewish country by US law, the indigenous status of the Jewish nation was recognized in the language of the international law. Israel was founded by a bunch of lawyers who legally represented  the Jewish cause in every step of the realization of Palestine into an independent state called Israel, all according to international law.
> 
> If some academics want to make a buck out of anecdotes I don't think there's anything to discuss, there's no Israeli side represented in this panel anyway.
> 
> Looking forward I can only wish Arab states give their people anywhere the same level of liberty and quality of life as Israel has managed for its Arab citizens in spite of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a foundation for something that has not been done often in history.  They layed the history out, and the interpretation of facts, that blame the outcome on everybody, especially the Jewish _(later Israeli)_ for the raw deal that the Arab Palestinians got.  The latent premise is that there must be a two-state solution with the advantage to the Arab Palestinian.  This is ground zero for opening political support for the destruction of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> The mistake that the panel makes _(in my estimation)_ is that none of them look at the reality.  Israel will never allow the bleeding heart pro-Palestinians to set the conditions today for the demise of Israel at some point in the future.  They appear to be trying to act as chair bound academic that want to foment anger to and to incite violent and ill-advised behavior to the degree that they will attempt to induce the external major Powers to overtake Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You always have two themes to your posts

One is that you try to make Israel legitimate. Of course this requires expounding profusely on foreign intervention.

The other is that you slime the Palestinians for their actions and incompetence, Like people in prison have options. They have lived under foreign dominance their entire life.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, I don't know any more than you do; maybe even less.  But this is not an impartial panel of experts; but rather a summation of a pro-Arab Palestinian Story.  But before I get on my soapbox, I just want to say that this media presentation was worth the hour (+) it takes to listen to this excessively sympathetic and emotional concern academic advocate for one of the most incompetent, ineffective, corrupt and poorly functioning excuse for a government that has ever graced the sands of the Middle East.  One of the reasons that the Arab Palestiansare at the near bottom of the social and economic development scale is because they listen to these very eloquent yet sadly mistaken expert panels it has ever been my misfortune to waste my time _(which I will never get back and so little left to spend on such dribble)_ listening.
> 
> Remember, this panelist will not be the people that pay the price for the anger they foment on the Two-State Solution (with an Arab State which will probably either collapse under its own weight or become just another mediocre Arab nations.  And that will gradually become a regional destabilizing force that will weaken Israel, with a drama that will playout over Jerusalem because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Starr Forum: 70 Years: Israel-Palestine – Reflections & Forecasts "Looking Back"*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of this video.
> 
> Palestine was recognized a Jewish country by US law, the indigenous status of the Jewish nation was recognized in the language of the international law. Israel was founded by a bunch of lawyers who legally represented  the Jewish cause in every step of the realization of Palestine into an independent state called Israel, all according to international law.
> 
> If some academics want to make a buck out of anecdotes I don't think there's anything to discuss, there's no Israeli side represented in this panel anyway.
> 
> Looking forward I can only wish Arab states give their people anywhere the same level of liberty and quality of life as Israel has managed for its Arab citizens in spite of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a foundation for something that has not been done often in history.  They layed the history out, and the interpretation of facts, that blame the outcome on everybody, especially the Jewish _(later Israeli)_ for the raw deal that the Arab Palestinians got.  The latent premise is that there must be a two-state solution with the advantage to the Arab Palestinian.  This is ground zero for opening political support for the destruction of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> The mistake that the panel makes _(in my estimation)_ is that none of them look at the reality.  Israel will never allow the bleeding heart pro-Palestinians to set the conditions today for the demise of Israel at some point in the future.  They appear to be trying to act as chair bound academic that want to foment anger to and to incite violent and ill-advised behavior to the degree that they will attempt to induce the external major Powers to overtake Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have two themes to your posts
> 
> One is that you try to make Israel legitimate. Of course this requires expounding profusely on foreign intervention.
> 
> The other is that you slime the Palestinians for their actions and incompetence, Like people in prison have options. They have lived under foreign dominance their entire life.
Click to expand...


It's hilarious, I can almost hear You sob each time anyone suggests Arabs actually move into the 21 century and stop blaming everyone else for their failures as a society.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Well for us Christians who support Israel and the Jews it all comes down to what we believe in Faith. For our Bible tells us both the Old and New Testaments about Jesus Second coming. He will call all His believers to meet Him in the air and as He sets foot on the Mt. of Olives, just outside Jerusalem, it will split into and He will fight for His people Israel who will have all been saved as they saw His coming. All the armies of the world gathered around Jerusalem will be destroyed by Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ). It is all recorded in the Prophets and in the New Testament. It does not matter what men say but what the plan of G_d is, as the world will soon learn. Egypt's Pharaoh had to learn the lesson the hard way about who the G_d of Israel was when Moses came to him and so the world will have to relearn the lesson because they have forgotten the lessons of History.


*
*


----------



## Slyhunter

Paparock said:


> Well for us Christians who support Israel and the Jews it all comes down to what we believe in Faith. For our Bible tells us both the Old and New Testaments about Jesus Second coming. He will call all His believers to meet Him in the air and as He sets foot on the Mt. of Olives, just outside Jerusalem, it will split into and He will fight for His people Israel who will have all been saved as they saw His coming. All the armies of the world gathered around Jerusalem will be destroyed by Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ). It is all recorded in the Prophets and in the New Testament. It does not matter what men say but what the plan of G_d is, as the world will soon learn. Egypt's Pharaoh had to learn the lesson the hard way about who the G_d of Israel was when Moses came to him and so the world will have to relearn the lesson because they have forgotten the lessons of History.


The only proof you have that Pharaoh learned the hard way about God is the book that made him up in the first place.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  Paparock, _et al,_

I don't necessarily agree with this, but I will admit that I have heard this line of thought before.  Many hold it to be true. 



Paparock said:


> Well for us Christians who support Israel and the Jews it all comes down to what we believe in Faith. For our Bible tells us both the Old and New Testaments about Jesus Second coming. He will call all His believers to meet Him in the air and as He sets foot on the Mt. of Olives, just outside Jerusalem, it will split into and He will fight for His people Israel who will have all been saved as they saw His coming. All the armies of the world gathered around Jerusalem will be destroyed by Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ). It is all recorded in the Prophets and in the New Testament. It does not matter what men say but what the plan of G_d is, as the world will soon learn. Egypt's Pharaoh had to learn the lesson the hard way about who the G_d of Israel was when Moses came to him and so the world will have to relearn the lesson because they have forgotten the lessons of History.


*(COMMENT)*

I think the Jewish People have been purged enough.  It is time that humanity consider _(as probably the Allied Powers did)_ that is time to create a safe haven for the Jewish people to be protected from the ills of the past. 

I suppose that, religious beliefs aside, that it is time we _(as a species)_ step up to the plate and protect and preserve the Jewish People, from the wrongs created in the past → under the color of law, from inflicting further injury on the Jewish people.  

I have no doubt that if we, as a species, put the fate of the Jewish People in the hand of the Arabs _(in general)_ and the Arab Palestinians _(specifically)_ that the majority will crush the Jewish People once again.  

The Israelis are a much more developed nation in the Middle East than any of its neighbors.  Given the opportunity to overrun _(Right of Return)_ Israel, they will strip it clean to the bone.  They will put such a burden on the nation that it will sink right into the sea.

The UN, while a nice idea, is an organization _(in many respects)_ that has come before its time.  While many nations have a reasonable idea of how to follow the Rule of Law (RoL).  But there are many more that do not have the moral values to operate under the RoL.  In fact, many have coloring outside the lines for so long, that they forgot where the RoL is. 

Any people that come to the conclusion that it is a legal open season to hunt and kill the Jewish People, that their religion approves of this as a general practice, have no clue as to the intent of the RoL or the difference between "good and evil" --- "right and wrong."  They should take a very hard look in the mirror at what kind of animal they have turned into, but they sure are looking like they are evolving backward.   

Just My Thoughts,
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Slyhunter said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for us Christians who support Israel and the Jews it all comes down to what we believe in Faith. For our Bible tells us both the Old and New Testaments about Jesus Second coming. He will call all His believers to meet Him in the air and as He sets foot on the Mt. of Olives, just outside Jerusalem, it will split into and He will fight for His people Israel who will have all been saved as they saw His coming. All the armies of the world gathered around Jerusalem will be destroyed by Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ). It is all recorded in the Prophets and in the New Testament. It does not matter what men say but what the plan of G_d is, as the world will soon learn. Egypt's Pharaoh had to learn the lesson the hard way about who the G_d of Israel was when Moses came to him and so the world will have to relearn the lesson because they have forgotten the lessons of History.
> 
> 
> 
> The only proof you have that Pharaoh learned the hard way about God is the book that made him up in the first place.
Click to expand...


I stated it up front it was my and other Christians FAITH. I did not offer it as proof to you or anyone else. You can take it or leave it as you wish to. I was simply  explaining what we believe. Time will tell the truth of it. I personally plan on being there to witness the events unfold.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

The UN is pretty much a useless organization in my personal opinion and ultimately I believe the world will try to fulfill Hitler's ultimate final solution for the Jewish problem only to find out that there is a G_d and that He is the G_d of Israel much to their dismay.


----------



## Sixties Fan

My Right Word: Golan Map: Its Jews Communities


----------



## Rehmani

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Paparock, _et al,_
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with this, but I will admit that I have heard this line of thought before.  Many hold it to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for us Christians who support Israel and the Jews it all comes down to what we believe in Faith. For our Bible tells us both the Old and New Testaments about Jesus Second coming. He will call all His believers to meet Him in the air and as He sets foot on the Mt. of Olives, just outside Jerusalem, it will split into and He will fight for His people Israel who will have all been saved as they saw His coming. All the armies of the world gathered around Jerusalem will be destroyed by Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ). It is all recorded in the Prophets and in the New Testament. It does not matter what men say but what the plan of G_d is, as the world will soon learn. Egypt's Pharaoh had to learn the lesson the hard way about who the G_d of Israel was when Moses came to him and so the world will have to relearn the lesson because they have forgotten the lessons of History.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think the Jewish People have been purged enough.  It is time that humanity consider _(as probably the Allied Powers did)_ that is time to create a safe haven for the Jewish people to be protected from the ills of the past.
> 
> I suppose that, religious beliefs aside, that it is time we _(as a species)_ step up to the plate and protect and preserve the Jewish People, from the wrongs created in the past → under the color of law, from inflicting further injury on the Jewish people.
> 
> I have no doubt that if we, as a species, put the fate of the Jewish People in the hand of the Arabs _(in general)_ and the Arab Palestinians _(specifically)_ that the majority will crush the Jewish People once again.
> 
> The Israelis are a much more developed nation in the Middle East than any of its neighbors.  Given the opportunity to overrun _(Right of Return)_ Israel, they will strip it clean to the bone.  They will put such a burden on the nation that it will sink right into the sea.
> 
> The UN, while a nice idea, is an organization _(in many respects)_ that has come before its time.  While many nations have a reasonable idea of how to follow the Rule of Law (RoL).  But there are many more that do not have the moral values to operate under the RoL.  In fact, many have coloring outside the lines for so long, that they forgot where the RoL is.
> 
> Any people that come to the conclusion that it is a legal open season to hunt and kill the Jewish People, that their religion approves of this as a general practice, have no clue as to the intent of the RoL or the difference between "good and evil" --- "right and wrong."  They should take a very hard look in the mirror at what kind of animal they have turned into, but they sure are looking like they are evolving backward.
> 
> Just My Thoughts,
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

"I think the Jewish People have been purged enough. It is time that humanity consider _(as probably the Allied Powers did)_ that is time to create a safe haven for the Jewish people to be protected from the ills of the past."
Dear RoccoR, the nature jews are carrying overr the centuries is ill and this ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH and give up their ill nature that they are special race or their Msaya is coming and we all know including jews that Masaya is not coming and they are not especial any more.


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, I don't know any more than you do; maybe even less.  But this is not an impartial panel of experts; but rather a summation of a pro-Arab Palestinian Story.  But before I get on my soapbox, I just want to say that this media presentation was worth the hour (+) it takes to listen to this excessively sympathetic and emotional concern academic advocate for one of the most incompetent, ineffective, corrupt and poorly functioning excuse for a government that has ever graced the sands of the Middle East.  One of the reasons that the Arab Palestiansare at the near bottom of the social and economic development scale is because they listen to these very eloquent yet sadly mistaken expert panels it has ever been my misfortune to waste my time _(which I will never get back and so little left to spend on such dribble)_ listening.
> 
> Remember, this panelist will not be the people that pay the price for the anger they foment on the Two-State Solution (with an Arab State which will probably either collapse under its own weight or become just another mediocre Arab nations.  And that will gradually become a regional destabilizing force that will weaken Israel, with a drama that will playout over Jerusalem because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Starr Forum: 70 Years: Israel-Palestine – Reflections & Forecasts "Looking Back"*
> 
> **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of this video.
> 
> Palestine was recognized a Jewish country by US law, the indigenous status of the Jewish nation was recognized in the language of the international law. Israel was founded by a bunch of lawyers who legally represented  the Jewish cause in every step of the realization of Palestine into an independent state called Israel, all according to international law.
> 
> If some academics want to make a buck out of anecdotes I don't think there's anything to discuss, there's no Israeli side represented in this panel anyway.
> 
> Looking forward I can only wish Arab states give their people anywhere the same level of liberty and quality of life as Israel has managed for its Arab citizens in spite of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a foundation for something that has not been done often in history.  They layed the history out, and the interpretation of facts, that blame the outcome on everybody, especially the Jewish _(later Israeli)_ for the raw deal that the Arab Palestinians got.  The latent premise is that there must be a two-state solution with the advantage to the Arab Palestinian.  This is ground zero for opening political support for the destruction of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> The mistake that the panel makes _(in my estimation)_ is that none of them look at the reality.  Israel will never allow the bleeding heart pro-Palestinians to set the conditions today for the demise of Israel at some point in the future.  They appear to be trying to act as chair bound academic that want to foment anger to and to incite violent and ill-advised behavior to the degree that they will attempt to induce the external major Powers to overtake Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have two themes to your posts
> 
> One is that you try to make Israel legitimate. Of course this requires expounding profusely on foreign intervention.
> 
> The other is that you slime the Palestinians for their actions and incompetence, Like people in prison have options. They have lived under foreign dominance their entire life.
Click to expand...

Dear P F Tinmore, I just reply to "RoccoR" that jew nature become ill over the centuries that they are especial race and they become psycho or mental means jew keep pressing this idea that they are especial but on the other hand world keep rejecting this idea that jew are not especial. In my point of view jew can not be fit in any society with this idea means they have to give up this idea and follow the Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH. we all have to work on this psychological problem jew have and cure them or wash their brain so they can live normal life like others freely and happily.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→  Rehmani, _et al,_

There is no subdivision in Humanity that has not demonstrated aspects of an "ill nature" _(a disagreeable, irritable, or malevolent disposition)_ of one sort or another.  The very idea that "this ill nature cannot be cured unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH" is an argument against religious freedom.  It basically says that the Jewish people must abandon their faith and assimilate into either Christianity or Muslim faiths.  



Rehmani said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I think the Jewish People have been purged enough. It is time that humanity consider _(as probably the Allied Powers did)_ that is time to create a safe haven for the Jewish people to be protected from the ills of the past."
> 
> 
> 
> Dear RoccoR, the nature jews are carrying overr the centuries is ill and this ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH and give up their ill nature that they are special race or their Msaya is coming and we all know including jews that Masaya is not coming and they are not especial any more.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

These wars and conflicts, that is to say → these non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental organizations of a separate set of religious groups _(or between faith-based groups)_ → only serves to support the contention that the dispute over the territories IS NOT an argument over political views and legitimacy in the concepts of territorial expansion or territorial partitioning, but rather the FORCED acceptance of a faith and the FORCED assimilation into the associated culture.  In contemporary times (while not law) the what is most often cited is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which is Law by Treaty.*​*​

			
				Article 2 - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) said:
			
		

> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.





			
				Article 18 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) said:
			
		

> 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
> 
> 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
> 
> 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
> 
> 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.


While it is implied in the UDHR that there is religious freedom, it is explicit in the CCPR that coercion as a means of compulsion _(especially with the use or threat of violence)_ into altering one's faith is unacceptable.  

I respectfully reject your argument that Jewishness is an "ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH."  It is a faith-based argument that is not only rejected by me, but by the acceptance and recognition that these rights are derived from the inherent dignity of humanity.   I am not Jewish.  In point of fact, I am agnostic and do not follow the belief that either "Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH" are prophets of the Supreme Being.  But I am not entitled to criticize the faith of others.

The key here is that if we are to accept your position, then we know that the territorial dispute presented by the Arab Palestinians is:

◈  Motivated by religious and faith-based concerns, and not on arguments of political or legitimate actions.

◈  Further cause to believe that:

❖  *IF* the People of Israel were to sit the conditions of there fate in the hands of the Arab Palestinians by openning their borders to the onslaught of Arabs, 
❖  *THEN* it would not be long before the Arab Palestinians would attempt to enforce your cure.​
Just my take on the position and why I think that rationally, the risk is too great for the Jewish State of Israel to entrust their destiny into the hands of those that believe it is set a bounty _(Palestinian Authority’s payment of monthly salaries to terrorists and families of suicide bombers)_ on Jewish Lives.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

(full article online)

"Of all the bigotries that savage the human temper there is none so stupid as the anti-Semitic" - D. Lloyd George, 1923 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Rehmani

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Rehmani, _et al,_
> 
> There is no subdivision in Humanity that has not demonstrated aspects of an "ill nature" _(a disagreeable, irritable, or malevolent disposition)_ of one sort or another.  The very idea that "this ill nature cannot be cured unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH" is an argument against religious freedom.  It basically says that the Jewish people must abandon their faith and assimilate into either Christianity or Muslim faiths.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I think the Jewish People have been purged enough. It is time that humanity consider _(as probably the Allied Powers did)_ that is time to create a safe haven for the Jewish people to be protected from the ills of the past."
> 
> 
> 
> Dear RoccoR, the nature jews are carrying overr the centuries is ill and this ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH and give up their ill nature that they are special race or their Msaya is coming and we all know including jews that Masaya is not coming and they are not especial any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> These wars and conflicts, that is to say → these non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental organizations of a separate set of religious groups _(or between faith-based groups)_ → only serves to support the contention that the dispute over the territories IS NOT an argument over political views and legitimacy in the concepts of territorial expansion or territorial partitioning, but rather the FORCED acceptance of a faith and the FORCED assimilation into the associated culture.  In contemporary times (while not law) the what is most often cited is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which is Law by Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 18 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
> 
> 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
> 
> 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
> 
> 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While it is implied in the UDHR that there is religious freedom, it is explicit in the CCPR that coercion as a means of compulsion _(especially with the use or threat of violence)_ into altering one's faith is unacceptable.
> 
> I respectfully reject your argument that Jewishness is an "ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH."  It is a faith-based argument that is not only rejected by me, but by the acceptance and recognition that these rights are derived from the inherent dignity of humanity.   I am not Jewish.  In point of fact, I am agnostic and do not follow the belief that either "Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH" are prophets of the Supreme Being.  But I am not entitled to criticize the faith of others.
> 
> The key here is that if we are to accept your position, then we know that the territorial dispute presented by the Arab Palestinians is:
> 
> ◈  Motivated by religious and faith-based concerns, and not on arguments of political or legitimate actions.
> 
> ◈  Further cause to believe that:
> 
> ❖  *IF* the People of Israel were to sit the conditions of there fate in the hands of the Arab Palestinians by openning their borders to the onslaught of Arabs,
> ❖  *THEN* it would not be long before the Arab Palestinians would attempt to enforce your cure.​
> Just my take on the position and why I think that rationally, the risk is too great for the Jewish State of Israel to entrust their destiny into the hands of those that believe it is set a bounty _(Palestinian Authority’s payment of monthly salaries to terrorists and families of suicide bombers)_ on Jewish Lives.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Dear RocoR, As long as humanity is concern, I am agreed with you but jew are the one who doesn't beleave in humanity or troubling the humanity by dividing the humanity. You can not establish the humanity unless you rehabilitate the jews and whole world have to play the roll to help jew out in this regards. 
1. Jews consider themselves that they are special race means you are not first but even you are second grade means they keep distance from you. they never allowed you to mix with them at any level of life. If you don't beleave you can ask question from the posters that how many posters have jews as a friend, you will hardly find anyone. T_hey will treat you as untouchable._ 
2. Jew are very good in propaganda means they make a lot of noise that lies start to feel like truth. For example they are calling to themselves that they are native to Jerusalem is a lie, because Holly Land is Arab land and Arab lives there for centuries/millenniums, while Abraham PBUH migrated from an unknown village of Iraq means jew can call themselves native from that lost village in Iraq. 
3. Jew claim that Jerusalem is there holly land which is a fat lie means they are not native from holy land second The Title Holly only come with the Prophet and not single prophet of jews ever entered in Jerusalem.
4. The wall they calling that a holly wall again a fat lie, because its retaining wall to built to support to Holly Mosque called Masjid Al-Aqsa. You can ask to any civil engineer about it.
5. Its a fat lei too, a race can not be started or known by great grand son like Yahudha/Judah. Race should be started by Great Grand Father, Like Abraham PBUH means they should call themselves Abrahami race instead jew. And Yahudha was not prophet either.
6. This is a lie too that according to Bible and Al-Quran there should be 12 Prophets of jews but jew rejected 6 of them, means how come they will accept Jesus PBUH and Mohammed PBUH as Prophet, who doesn't speaks Hibru.
7. Jew crucified Jesus PBUH but God lifted him PBUH up in Heaven and Jesus PBUH arrival expected soon.
Don't you think its a ill nature, there are long list of facts if you search on google with clear mind.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Rehmani, _et al,_
> 
> There is no subdivision in Humanity that has not demonstrated aspects of an "ill nature" _(a disagreeable, irritable, or malevolent disposition)_ of one sort or another.  The very idea that "this ill nature cannot be cured unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH" is an argument against religious freedom.  It basically says that the Jewish people must abandon their faith and assimilate into either Christianity or Muslim faiths.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I think the Jewish People have been purged enough. It is time that humanity consider _(as probably the Allied Powers did)_ that is time to create a safe haven for the Jewish people to be protected from the ills of the past."
> 
> 
> 
> Dear RoccoR, the nature jews are carrying overr the centuries is ill and this ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH and give up their ill nature that they are special race or their Msaya is coming and we all know including jews that Masaya is not coming and they are not especial any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> These wars and conflicts, that is to say → these non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental organizations of a separate set of religious groups _(or between faith-based groups)_ → only serves to support the contention that the dispute over the territories IS NOT an argument over political views and legitimacy in the concepts of territorial expansion or territorial partitioning, but rather the FORCED acceptance of a faith and the FORCED assimilation into the associated culture.  In contemporary times (while not law) the what is most often cited is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which is Law by Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 18 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
> 
> 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
> 
> 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
> 
> 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While it is implied in the UDHR that there is religious freedom, it is explicit in the CCPR that coercion as a means of compulsion _(especially with the use or threat of violence)_ into altering one's faith is unacceptable.
> 
> I respectfully reject your argument that Jewishness is an "ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH."  It is a faith-based argument that is not only rejected by me, but by the acceptance and recognition that these rights are derived from the inherent dignity of humanity.   I am not Jewish.  In point of fact, I am agnostic and do not follow the belief that either "Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH" are prophets of the Supreme Being.  But I am not entitled to criticize the faith of others.
> 
> The key here is that if we are to accept your position, then we know that the territorial dispute presented by the Arab Palestinians is:
> 
> ◈  Motivated by religious and faith-based concerns, and not on arguments of political or legitimate actions.
> 
> ◈  Further cause to believe that:
> 
> ❖  *IF* the People of Israel were to sit the conditions of there fate in the hands of the Arab Palestinians by openning their borders to the onslaught of Arabs,
> ❖  *THEN* it would not be long before the Arab Palestinians would attempt to enforce your cure.​
> Just my take on the position and why I think that rationally, the risk is too great for the Jewish State of Israel to entrust their destiny into the hands of those that believe it is set a bounty _(Palestinian Authority’s payment of monthly salaries to terrorists and families of suicide bombers)_ on Jewish Lives.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear RocoR, As long as humanity is concern, I am agreed with you but jew are the one who doesn't beleave in humanity or troubling the humanity by dividing the humanity. You can not establish the humanity unless you rehabilitate the jews and whole world have to play the roll to help jew out in this regards.
> 1. Jews consider themselves that they are special race means you are not first but even you are second grade means they keep distance from you. they never allowed you to mix with them at any level of life. If you don't beleave you can ask question from the posters that how many posters have jews as a friend, you will hardly find anyone. T_hey will treat you as untouchable._
> 2. Jew are very good in propaganda means they make a lot of noise that lies start to feel like truth. For example they are calling to themselves that they are native to Jerusalem is a lie, because Holly Land is Arab land and Arab lives there for centuries/millenniums, while Abraham PBUH migrated from an unknown village of Iraq means jew can call themselves native from that lost village in Iraq.
> 3. Jew claim that Jerusalem is there holly land which is a fat lie means they are not native from holy land second The Title Holly only come with the Prophet and not single prophet of jews ever entered in Jerusalem.
> 4. The wall they calling that a holly wall again a fat lie, because its retaining wall to built to support to Holly Mosque called Masjid Al-Aqsa. You can ask to any civil engineer about it.
> 5. Its a fat lei too, a race can not be started or known by great grand son like Yahudha/Judah. Race should be started by Great Grand Father, Like Abraham PBUH means they should call themselves Abrahami race instead jew. And Yahudha was not prophet either.
> 6. This is a lie too that according to Bible and Al-Quran there should be 12 Prophets of jews but jew rejected 6 of them, means how come they will accept Jesus PBUH and Mohammed PBUH as Prophet, who doesn't speaks Hibru.
> 7. Jew crucified Jesus PBUH but God lifted him PBUH up in Heaven and Jesus PBUH arrival expected soon.
> Don't you think its a ill nature, there are long list of facts if you search on google with clear mind.
Click to expand...


Such an inquiring mind, how could Jews not like You?! They don't DESERVE You!
Next time when You want to make Jewish friends, I suggest talking more about crucifixion,
and don't forget the bloody matzos, it's a great opener.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Theodor Herzl: The Zionist Dream of a Jewish State


WATCH: How Theodor Herzl Pioneered the Zionist Dream of a Jewish State


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ※→  Rehmani, _et al,_
> 
> There is no subdivision in Humanity that has not demonstrated aspects of an "ill nature" _(a disagreeable, irritable, or malevolent disposition)_ of one sort or another.  The very idea that "this ill nature cannot be cured unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH" is an argument against religious freedom.  It basically says that the Jewish people must abandon their faith and assimilate into either Christianity or Muslim faiths.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I think the Jewish People have been purged enough. It is time that humanity consider _(as probably the Allied Powers did)_ that is time to create a safe haven for the Jewish people to be protected from the ills of the past."
> 
> 
> 
> Dear RoccoR, the nature jews are carrying overr the centuries is ill and this ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH and give up their ill nature that they are special race or their Msaya is coming and we all know including jews that Masaya is not coming and they are not especial any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> These wars and conflicts, that is to say → these non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental organizations of a separate set of religious groups _(or between faith-based groups)_ → only serves to support the contention that the dispute over the territories IS NOT an argument over political views and legitimacy in the concepts of territorial expansion or territorial partitioning, but rather the FORCED acceptance of a faith and the FORCED assimilation into the associated culture.  In contemporary times (while not law) the what is most often cited is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which is Law by Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 18 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
> 
> 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
> 
> 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
> 
> 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While it is implied in the UDHR that there is religious freedom, it is explicit in the CCPR that coercion as a means of compulsion _(especially with the use or threat of violence)_ into altering one's faith is unacceptable.
> 
> I respectfully reject your argument that Jewishness is an "ill nature can not be cure unless they either follow Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH."  It is a faith-based argument that is not only rejected by me, but by the acceptance and recognition that these rights are derived from the inherent dignity of humanity.   I am not Jewish.  In point of fact, I am agnostic and do not follow the belief that either "Jesus PBUH or Mohammed PBUH" are prophets of the Supreme Being.  But I am not entitled to criticize the faith of others.
> 
> The key here is that if we are to accept your position, then we know that the territorial dispute presented by the Arab Palestinians is:
> 
> ◈  Motivated by religious and faith-based concerns, and not on arguments of political or legitimate actions.
> 
> ◈  Further cause to believe that:
> 
> ❖  *IF* the People of Israel were to sit the conditions of there fate in the hands of the Arab Palestinians by openning their borders to the onslaught of Arabs,
> ❖  *THEN* it would not be long before the Arab Palestinians would attempt to enforce your cure.​
> Just my take on the position and why I think that rationally, the risk is too great for the Jewish State of Israel to entrust their destiny into the hands of those that believe it is set a bounty _(Palestinian Authority’s payment of monthly salaries to terrorists and families of suicide bombers)_ on Jewish Lives.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear RocoR, As long as humanity is concern, I am agreed with you but jew are the one who doesn't beleave in humanity or troubling the humanity by dividing the humanity. You can not establish the humanity unless you rehabilitate the jews and whole world have to play the roll to help jew out in this regards.
> 1. Jews consider themselves that they are special race means you are not first but even you are second grade means they keep distance from you. they never allowed you to mix with them at any level of life. If you don't beleave you can ask question from the posters that how many posters have jews as a friend, you will hardly find anyone. T_hey will treat you as untouchable._
> 2. Jew are very good in propaganda means they make a lot of noise that lies start to feel like truth. For example they are calling to themselves that they are native to Jerusalem is a lie, because Holly Land is Arab land and Arab lives there for centuries/millenniums, while Abraham PBUH migrated from an unknown village of Iraq means jew can call themselves native from that lost village in Iraq.
> 3. Jew claim that Jerusalem is there holly land which is a fat lie means they are not native from holy land second The Title Holly only come with the Prophet and not single prophet of jews ever entered in Jerusalem.
> 4. The wall they calling that a holly wall again a fat lie, because its retaining wall to built to support to Holly Mosque called Masjid Al-Aqsa. You can ask to any civil engineer about it.
> 5. Its a fat lei too, a race can not be started or known by great grand son like Yahudha/Judah. Race should be started by Great Grand Father, Like Abraham PBUH means they should call themselves Abrahami race instead jew. And Yahudha was not prophet either.
> 6. This is a lie too that according to Bible and Al-Quran there should be 12 Prophets of jews but jew rejected 6 of them, means how come they will accept Jesus PBUH and Mohammed PBUH as Prophet, who doesn't speaks Hibru.
> 7. Jew crucified Jesus PBUH but God lifted him PBUH up in Heaven and Jesus PBUH arrival expected soon.
> Don't you think its a ill nature, there are long list of facts if you search on google with clear mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such an inquiring mind, how could Jews not like You?! They don't DESERVE You!
> Next time when You want to make Jewish friends, I suggest talking more about crucifixion,
> and don't forget the bloody matzos, it's a great opener.
Click to expand...

thank God I am not like jew and I am sure that jew can not make friend to anyone with racial mind.


----------



## Sixties Fan

According to the 1883 book _Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia: A Visit to Sacred Lands, _by Félix Bovet, throughout the 19th century Palestine was not really under the real authority of the Ottoman Empire, but with some exceptions the towns acted independently.

So how did the Palestinian Arabs act when they had a decent measure of autonomy?

Not at all like a people. In fact, they acted the opposite of how a people would act - they only fought each other and identified with their tribes and towns, not at all as Palestinians.

----

At least in 1883, there was clearly no "Palestinian people." It was just a bunch of towns and villages who would fight or ally as necessary, with no sense whatsoever of national unity or pride. And certainly none of these people self-identified as "Palestinian."

(full article online)

"Palestinian" autonomy in the 19th century ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> According to the 1883 book _Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia: A Visit to Sacred Lands, _by Félix Bovet, throughout the 19th century Palestine was not really under the real authority of the Ottoman Empire, but with some exceptions the towns acted independently.
> 
> So how did the Palestinian Arabs act when they had a decent measure of autonomy?
> 
> Not at all like a people. In fact, they acted the opposite of how a people would act - they only fought each other and identified with their tribes and towns, not at all as Palestinians.
> 
> ----
> 
> At least in 1883, there was clearly no "Palestinian people." It was just a bunch of towns and villages who would fight or ally as necessary, with no sense whatsoever of national unity or pride. And certainly none of these people self-identified as "Palestinian."
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> "Palestinian" autonomy in the 19th century ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


Your's people nonsense or stupid propaganda a lot of time go against you. Like this "few towns/villages gathered not identified as Palestinian" Jew did the same thing and invade the Native Arab Land, before no one knew Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

In honoring the contribution of the Jews of Palestine in helping to defeat the Turks the post-war world governing body, the League of Nations, agreed unanimously, including the Arab vote, to mandate the establishment in Palestine of the national home of the Jewish people encouraging them to pursue close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

They did this in recognition of “the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

It’s worth repeating. The League of Nations Mandate received the approval of the leading Arab voices who were satisfied that the local Arabs would not be harmed by this arrangement as stipulated by the condition that “nothing shall be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

The Arab leaders agreed to the terms of the mandate because they were in line to receive their share of lands including Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.

A significant result of the Mandate was a further boost to the Zionist enterprise in mandated Palestine. The Jews in Palestine developed the land, built the infrastructure and the industries required to sustain a rapidly growing population.

The early pioneering spirit in Palestine was seen in the construction of the Palestine Electric Company in 1923 by Pinchas Rutenberg, a Palestinian Jew, the introduction of the_ Palestine Post i_n 1932 by another Palestinian Jew, Gershon Agron. This national, later international, newspaper became the _Jerusalem Post _in 1950. The Zionist enterprise needed to be financed and this was established by the Anglo-Palestine Bank in 1902 set up by Palestinian Jews which became Bank Leumi after Israel declared its independence in 1948. Palestinian Jewish farmers and tillers of the land created the unique collective agricultural settlements known as the kibbutz. The agronomists and geologists were Palestinian Jews.

In advance of statehood the Jews were busy developing the needs of a people deserving of a nation of their own. All this attracted a mass immigration of Arabs from the region into Palestine for economic reasons as a result of the Zionist enterprise.

(full article online)

The Palestinian pioneering spirit


----------



## Sixties Fan

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/...ab-settlers-in-the-land-of-israel/2018/12/26/


----------



## Sixties Fan

What the U.N. needs to admit about the “Palestinian” refugees


----------



## Sixties Fan

Appeasement: The Murderous Legacy of Haj Amin al-Husseini


----------



## Sixties Fan

What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  Sixties Fan,  et al,

Yes, I have contributed and commented many times on this very subject.



Sixties Fan said:


> What the U.N. needs to admit about the “Palestinian” refugees


*(COMMENT)*

When a quasi-World Body like the UN jacks up the numbers by tying the descendants to the rolls of the refugee, we call this "Malfeasance" _(wrongdoing under the color of law, especially by a public official)_.  Every country has a problem with these rodents running area and calling themselves diplomats. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

A Tour of the Holy Land 1831-1910


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> A Tour of the Holy Land 1831-1910


Good post, thanks.

The markets (bazaars) played a key role. They were very picturesque and aroused the wonderment of pilgrims who flocked to photograph them, in particular the markets of Jaffa, Jerusalem and Bethlehem, as mementos of their visit to the Holy Land. These markets served not only for the sale of goods but were also the place where most of the artisans practised their crafts. There were special markets for the various craftsmen and merchants: metalworkers, tanners, oil vendors, butchers, etc. In certain markets (mainly those in the principal towns), fellaheen offered their produce for direct sale. Thus, there were special livestock markets in Jerusalem (in the Sultan's Pool) and Jaffa, while Safed had a market for grain and charcoal.

During the 19th century the economy of the towns of the Holy Land was largely based on agriculture. Their inhabitants owned fields and orchards in the vicinity and the more affluent among them gained their livelihood by exploiting the labour of the fellaheen.

 [2] This was the situation up to the mid-19th century. Towards the end of that century gradual improvements were introduced.​
Palestine was really held back by Ottoman leases and 33% tax on production. With that being gone, there was a lot more money for investments.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Chaim of Arabia: The First Arab-Zionist Alliance - Jewish Review of Books


----------



## Sixties Fan

My Right Word: On the East Side of the Jordan


----------



## Sixties Fan

Should we inform her that the only reason a "Palestine" was created by the League of Nations was to reconstitute the historic Jewish national home?

__________________

A comment:

Ariel, and if you read the Hebrew word for Palestine on the top right of the passport, you would see, in parentheses, the abbreviation, also in Hebrew, for “the land of Israel” (א״י) as the description for what Palestine was.

(full article online)

My Right Word: One for the Dumb Jews Category


----------



## Sixties Fan

Jeremy Hunt: Cap on Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939 was ‘black moment’


----------



## Natural Citizen

Rocco, you have some good postings, brother.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  Sixties Fan,  et al,

I cannot argue that 1939 was not a bad year; but I tend to think that a series of event in the few years immediately prior to the 1939 decisions was the spark that led the British to that rash decision that implemented a limitation on Jewish Immigration and restrictions on land titles_ (and title buy-outs)_ that were being encouraged by Jewish Leaders in the backdrop of the Jewish National Home..



Sixties Fan said:


> Jeremy Hunt: Cap on Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939 was ‘black moment’


*(COMMENT)*

The trigger that lit the fuze began in late 1935 with the man-hunt and shoot-out with the Palestinian Black Hand _(the first major terrorist group)_ → _(culminating with the fatal shooting of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, quasi-cleric by day and terrorist by night, → a close associate of the Grand Mufti)_ was a series of tit-for-tat attacks to fatal confrontations in April 1936.  In May 1936, the flashpoint was when the very influential Cleric _(former Ottoman Army Officer)_ Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, instigated 'Palestine Day' and advocated _(incited additional violence)_ the General Strike a month later _(16 May)_.   This was further supported by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC)_(the bandwagon effect)_. That series of actions and reaction pushed the consequence into what became the Great Arab Revolt (1936 - 1939).  The Foreign Office wanted to stave off the impending violence and hurriedly attempted to appraise the AHC and the leaders of the revolt with the new limitations on immigration and restriction on further land purchases.  The Jewish Agency was paying a very fair price for the ownership or control of real property _(real estate)_ and/or a controlling interest in real property and outstanding mortgages, liens and leases. The elitist of the Arab Palestinian Community was receiving just compensation and the Banks were making a fair profit _(if not more)_ in the transactions.  But the Arab Palestinians were playing both sides; onside making a profit and the other side painting the Jewish Agency as a sinister entity stealing the land.

It is just my thought that the entire decade (1930-1939) was a very bad decade for both sides that were not making money on the events.  The Arab Elite thought that if the uprising was significant enough and the Jewish Population did not grow very much, that the Jewish Agency might abandon the holdings and the Arab Elite could reclaim the real property.

No one got what they wanted.  Politically speaking _(which is the way the British framed things)_ the growth of Arab distrust of the British and the Jews was never repaired and was only widened with the rise of the NAZI's in 1939, events like Kristallnacht, and the beginning of the Jewish Roundup throughout Europe.  It was a time in which no one wants to take responsibility and closed their eyes to the adverse happening of the day.  The "White Paper of 1939" added to the confusion; so much so, that the Foreign Office stated emphatically _(a faster back peddling the world has never seen in the British Empire)_ that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​
*(GAME OVER)*

There was no likely scenario in which the peace could be maintained.  The repercussion of the mistakes of the decade of the 1930s was never to be undone.

At that point, _(In my personal opinion)_ the game was lost.  Politically, the Allied Powers _(either the WWI version or WWII version)_ would never bring the political situation back under control.

Just My Thumbnail View on how things unfolded and the impact...

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Sixties Fan,  et al,
> 
> I cannot argue that 1939 was not a bad year; but I tend to think that a series of event in the few years immediately prior to the 1939 decisions was the spark that led the British to that rash decision that implemented a limitation on Jewish Immigration and restrictions on land titles_ (and title buy-outs)_ that were being encouraged by Jewish Leaders in the backdrop of the Jewish National Home..
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Hunt: Cap on Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939 was ‘black moment’
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The trigger that lit the fuze began in late 1935 with the man-hunt and shoot-out with the Palestinian Black Hand _(the first major terrorist group)_ → _(culminating with the fatal shooting of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, quasi-cleric by day and terrorist by night, → a close associate of the Grand Mufti)_ was a series of tit-for-tat attacks to fatal confrontations in April 1936.  In May 1936, the flashpoint was when the very influential Cleric _(former Ottoman Army Officer)_ Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, instigated 'Palestine Day' and advocated _(incited additional violence)_ the General Strike a month later _(16 May)_.   This was further supported by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC)_(the bandwagon effect)_. That series of actions and reaction pushed the consequence into what became the Great Arab Revolt (1936 - 1939).  The Foreign Office wanted to stave off the impending violence and hurriedly attempted to appraise the AHC and the leaders of the revolt with the new limitations on immigration and restriction on further land purchases.  The Jewish Agency was paying a very fair price for the ownership or control of real property _(real estate)_ and/or a controlling interest in real property and outstanding mortgages, liens and leases. The elitist of the Arab Palestinian Community was receiving just compensation and the Banks were making a fair profit _(if not more)_ in the transactions.  But the Arab Palestinians were playing both sides; onside making a profit and the other side painting the Jewish Agency as a sinister entity stealing the land.
> 
> It is just my thought that the entire decade (1930-1939) was a very bad decade for both sides that were not making money on the events.  The Arab Elite thought that if the uprising was significant enough and the Jewish Population did not grow very much, that the Jewish Agency might abandon the holdings and the Arab Elite could reclaim the real property.
> 
> No one got what they wanted.  Politically speaking _(which is the way the British framed things)_ the growth of Arab distrust of the British and the Jews was never repaired and was only widened with the rise of the NAZI's in 1939, events like Kristallnacht, and the beginning of the Jewish Roundup throughout Europe.  It was a time in which no one wants to take responsibility and closed their eyes to the adverse happening of the day.  The "White Paper of 1939" added to the confusion; so much so, that the Foreign Office stated emphatically _(a faster back peddling the world has never seen in the British Empire)_ that:
> 
> “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​
> *(GAME OVER)*
> 
> There was no likely scenario in which the peace could be maintained.  The repercussion of the mistakes of the decade of the 1930s was never to be undone.
> 
> At that point, _(In my personal opinion)_ the game was lost.  Politically, the Allied Powers _(either the WWI version or WWII version)_ would never bring the political situation back under control.
> 
> Just My Thumbnail View on how things unfolded and the impact...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

In 1936 to1939 Britain's stupid came around to bite them on the ass. They discovered that their scheme was unworkable. No shit Sherlock, people have been telling you that for 20 years.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Sixties Fan,  et al,
> 
> I cannot argue that 1939 was not a bad year; but I tend to think that a series of event in the few years immediately prior to the 1939 decisions was the spark that led the British to that rash decision that implemented a limitation on Jewish Immigration and restrictions on land titles_ (and title buy-outs)_ that were being encouraged by Jewish Leaders in the backdrop of the Jewish National Home..
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Hunt: Cap on Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939 was ‘black moment’
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The trigger that lit the fuze began in late 1935 with the man-hunt and shoot-out with the Palestinian Black Hand _(the first major terrorist group)_ → _(culminating with the fatal shooting of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, quasi-cleric by day and terrorist by night, → a close associate of the Grand Mufti)_ was a series of tit-for-tat attacks to fatal confrontations in April 1936.  In May 1936, the flashpoint was when the very influential Cleric _(former Ottoman Army Officer)_ Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, instigated 'Palestine Day' and advocated _(incited additional violence)_ the General Strike a month later _(16 May)_.   This was further supported by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC)_(the bandwagon effect)_. That series of actions and reaction pushed the consequence into what became the Great Arab Revolt (1936 - 1939).  The Foreign Office wanted to stave off the impending violence and hurriedly attempted to appraise the AHC and the leaders of the revolt with the new limitations on immigration and restriction on further land purchases.  The Jewish Agency was paying a very fair price for the ownership or control of real property _(real estate)_ and/or a controlling interest in real property and outstanding mortgages, liens and leases. The elitist of the Arab Palestinian Community was receiving just compensation and the Banks were making a fair profit _(if not more)_ in the transactions.  But the Arab Palestinians were playing both sides; onside making a profit and the other side painting the Jewish Agency as a sinister entity stealing the land.
> 
> It is just my thought that the entire decade (1930-1939) was a very bad decade for both sides that were not making money on the events.  The Arab Elite thought that if the uprising was significant enough and the Jewish Population did not grow very much, that the Jewish Agency might abandon the holdings and the Arab Elite could reclaim the real property.
> 
> No one got what they wanted.  Politically speaking _(which is the way the British framed things)_ the growth of Arab distrust of the British and the Jews was never repaired and was only widened with the rise of the NAZI's in 1939, events like Kristallnacht, and the beginning of the Jewish Roundup throughout Europe.  It was a time in which no one wants to take responsibility and closed their eyes to the adverse happening of the day.  The "White Paper of 1939" added to the confusion; so much so, that the Foreign Office stated emphatically _(a faster back peddling the world has never seen in the British Empire)_ that:
> 
> “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​
> *(GAME OVER)*
> 
> There was no likely scenario in which the peace could be maintained.  The repercussion of the mistakes of the decade of the 1930s was never to be undone.
> 
> At that point, _(In my personal opinion)_ the game was lost.  Politically, the Allied Powers _(either the WWI version or WWII version)_ would never bring the political situation back under control.
> 
> Just My Thumbnail View on how things unfolded and the impact...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1936 to1939 Britain's stupid came around to bite them on the ass. They discovered that their scheme was unworkable. No shit Sherlock, people have been telling you that for 20 years.
Click to expand...


Yours is quite the Islamist sense of entitlement.


----------



## Rehmani

Jew are wasting their time and others because masaya is not coming and they are not special race 3000 years has bee passed. Jew don't believe in God but believe in Juhda - Gd means they consider themselves special and God has nothing to do with it. I am trying to clear their mind that if you are special then where all those special jews and they were not jew or Juhda race they were Abraham PBUH reace and why jew are playing in undercover if they are special why they don't play on level ground with every one and if they special they should produce something special.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,

I'm not sure this is a valid line of thought.  This is a faith-based argument; an argument that suggests that one side of the belief is valid and the other is not.  And in that determination, the judgment is made as to who is right or wrong. 



Rehmani said:


> Jew are wasting their time and others because Masaya is not coming and they are not special race 3000 years has bee passed. Jew don't believe in God but believe in Juhda - Gd means they consider themselves special and God has nothing to do with it. I am trying to clear their mind that if you are special then where all those special jews and they were not jew or Juhda race they were Abraham PBUH reace and why jew are playing in undercover if they are special why they don't play on level ground with every one and if they special they should produce something special.


*(COMMENT)*

Claims centered on ancient legacies are seldom valid, thousands of years later.  In that time literally, hundreds of sovereignties have risen and fallen.   Whether you believe a claim of sovereignty or a territorial title was granted by a deity or not, is not relevant.  It is not recognized by law.   Claims of sovereignty and territorial title are established by customary and secular codified law.  Once you enter a "belief" and "faith" in a deity into the equation, the Rule of Law become degraded.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure this is a valid line of thought.  This is a faith-based argument; an argument that suggests that one side of the belief is valid and the other is not.  And in that determination, the judgment is made as to who is right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew are wasting their time and others because Masaya is not coming and they are not special race 3000 years has bee passed. Jew don't believe in God but believe in Juhda - Gd means they consider themselves special and God has nothing to do with it. I am trying to clear their mind that if you are special then where all those special jews and they were not jew or Juhda race they were Abraham PBUH reace and why jew are playing in undercover if they are special why they don't play on level ground with every one and if they special they should produce something special.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Claims centered on ancient legacies are seldom valid, thousands of years later.  In that time literally, hundreds of sovereignties have risen and fallen.   Whether you believe a claim of sovereignty or a territorial title was granted by a deity or not, is not relevant.  It is not recognized by law.   Claims of sovereignty and territorial title are established by customary and secular codified law.  Once you enter a "belief" and "faith" in a deity into the equation, the Rule of Law become degraded.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Rocco, he is on delegitimizing anything Jewish, especially the Jews of today as being descendants of Jews.

He is a Muslim.  He is a Christian.  He is anything and everything and knows all about Jews and their history. "Knows" that they have achieved Nothing.
"Trust him".

Wrong thread, as I have said many times.

Most respectfully


----------



## Rehmani

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure this is a valid line of thought.  This is a faith-based argument; an argument that suggests that one side of the belief is valid and the other is not.  And in that determination, the judgment is made as to who is right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew are wasting their time and others because Masaya is not coming and they are not special race 3000 years has bee passed. Jew don't believe in God but believe in Juhda - Gd means they consider themselves special and God has nothing to do with it. I am trying to clear their mind that if you are special then where all those special jews and they were not jew or Juhda race they were Abraham PBUH reace and why jew are playing in undercover if they are special why they don't play on level ground with every one and if they special they should produce something special.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Claims centered on ancient legacies are seldom valid, thousands of years later.  In that time literally, hundreds of sovereignties have risen and fallen.   Whether you believe a claim of sovereignty or a territorial title was granted by a deity or not, is not relevant.  It is not recognized by law.   Claims of sovereignty and territorial title are established by customary and secular codified law.  Once you enter a "belief" and "faith" in a deity into the equation, the Rule of Law become degraded.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

R; I agreed. But that is exactly what jew have to understand. I only want from jew that please lead normal life. Because we want to know you, just as Christian and Muslim, Hindus, Buddhist and others introduce to each others.


----------



## Sixties Fan

As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.

In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.

Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.

The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.

(full article online)

Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership





Sixties Fan said:


> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states.





Sixties Fan said:


> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.


You are forgetting about the 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> 
> 
> You are forgetting about the 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence.
Click to expand...


You are forgetting about the forgotten-about 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence. Wasn't that superseded by Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude at being independent?


----------



## Sixties Fan

No, Israel was not created by the UN ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership


But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership
> 
> 
> 
> But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.
Click to expand...


Well, that's Your opinion.
Fact is everything started about a hundred years before 1948, around the times of Arab pogroms against the Jews throughout the Ottoman empire, including Jews of Levant. Lands in which their communities continuously existed since at least 1000 years before the invention of Islam.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership
> 
> 
> 
> But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's Your opinion.
> Fact is everything started about a hundred years before 1948, around the times of Arab pogroms against the Jews throughout the Ottoman empire, including Jews of Levant. Lands in which their communities continuously existed since at least 1000 years before the invention of Islam.
Click to expand...


I agreed as long as jew existence is concern. But the way they exist is wrong for example they live undercover means they live either as mulsim christian hinuds buddhist and more but not as a jew. All I want either jew live normal life with out a cover or give up your idea that you are special race or Masaya is coming.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership
> 
> 
> 
> But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's Your opinion.
> Fact is everything started about a hundred years before 1948, around the times of Arab pogroms against the Jews throughout the Ottoman empire, including Jews of Levant. Lands in which their communities continuously existed since at least 1000 years before the invention of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agreed as long as jew existence is concern. But the way they exist is wrong for example they live undercover means they live either as mulsim christian hinuds buddhist and more but not as a jew. All I want either jew live normal life with out a cover or give up your idea that you are special race or Masaya is coming.
Click to expand...

1 )  If you can make the Christian or Muslim society  stop attacking Jews and wanting Jews dead, those who are being forced to hide will stop being "undercover".    But you cannot, and they have every right to live whichever way they want to stay alive as human beings and follow their beliefs.

And many are discovering that their ancestor were Jewish and had been FORCED to convert, and are returning to being Jewish. 
Being FORCED to convert to Christianity or Islam is not a nice way for Christians and Muslims to behave, IS IT ?  Why should anyone be forced to convert to another belief, which is what has been happening to Jews from Christianity and Islam for the past 1700 years?


2)   Being Jewish is not a RACE, to begin with, that is something Adolf Hitler invented in order to turn Germany and anyone who was brought up with the same hatred for Jews as he was, to his ideas of expelling or killing all the Jews.  Ideas he got from his Christian Catholic upbringing.   Catholic Church had been teaching hatred for Jews for 1900 years before his birth.


3)    Jews do NOT think of themselves as "special people", that is something your Christian/Muslim upbringing has put in your head.

4)  The Jewish Messiah, is NONE of your business, as a Christian or Muslim.   Live your life in a peaceful, loving way and leave all Jews alone.

The Jewish Messiah is NOT the Christian Messiah, and Jews have absolutely NOTHING to do with the way Christians were taught to look at the idea of a Messiah. 

It is Christian frustration at the way they were taught about any Messiah which makes them want to harm and kill Jews every time Christians are not happy with what is happening to them.


So, when is Christianity going to grow up and live its Christian destiny and LEAVE  ALL JEWS BE?


Of course you would have NO idea about it, since you totally believe
what you have been taught and come here and repeat all the nonsense which have been taught about Jews since Paul of Tarsus created Christianity for desperate people like himself.


Now, have a peaceful, loving life towards ALL humans, and leave the Jewish people OUT of your need for a scapegoat for anything bad which may happen in your life or in the whole world, for that matter.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership
> 
> 
> 
> But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's Your opinion.
> Fact is everything started about a hundred years before 1948, around the times of Arab pogroms against the Jews throughout the Ottoman empire, including Jews of Levant. Lands in which their communities continuously existed since at least 1000 years before the invention of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agreed as long as jew existence is concern. But the way they exist is wrong for example they live undercover means they live either as mulsim christian hinuds buddhist and more but not as a jew. All I want either jew live normal life with out a cover or give up your idea that you are special race or Masaya is coming.
Click to expand...

Be sincere with us.

Are you a Christian or a Muslim?


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership
> 
> 
> 
> But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's Your opinion.
> Fact is everything started about a hundred years before 1948, around the times of Arab pogroms against the Jews throughout the Ottoman empire, including Jews of Levant. Lands in which their communities continuously existed since at least 1000 years before the invention of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agreed as long as jew existence is concern. But the way they exist is wrong for example they live undercover means they live either as mulsim christian hinuds buddhist and more but not as a jew. All I want either jew live normal life with out a cover or give up your idea that you are special race or Masaya is coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be sincere with us.
> 
> Are you a Christian or a Muslim?
Click to expand...

Muslim and Muslim only.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership
> 
> 
> 
> But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's Your opinion.
> Fact is everything started about a hundred years before 1948, around the times of Arab pogroms against the Jews throughout the Ottoman empire, including Jews of Levant. Lands in which their communities continuously existed since at least 1000 years before the invention of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agreed as long as jew existence is concern. But the way they exist is wrong for example they live undercover means they live either as mulsim christian hinuds buddhist and more but not as a jew. All I want either jew live normal life with out a cover or give up your idea that you are special race or Masaya is coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 )  If you can make the Christian or Muslim society this "undercover Jews" live in stop wanting them dead, they will stop being "undercover".    But you cannot, and they have every right to live whichever way they want to stay alive as human beings.
> 
> And many are discovering that their ancestor were Jewish and had been FORCED to convert, and returning to being Jewish.
> Being FORCED to convert to Christianity or Islam is not a nice way for Christians and Muslims to behave, IS IT ?
> 
> 
> 2)   Being Jewish is not a RACE, to begin with, that is something Adolf Hitler invented in order to turn Germany and anyone who became Nazi to his ideas of expelling or killing all the Jews.  Ideas he got from his Christian Catholic upbringing.
> 
> 
> 3)    Jews do NOT think of themselves as "special people", that is something your Christian/Muslim upbringing has put in your head.
> 
> 4)  The Jewish Messiah, is NONE of your business, as a Christian or Muslim.   Live your life in a peaceful, loving way and leave all Jews alone.
> 
> The Jewish Messiah is NOT the Christian Messiah, and Jews have absolutely NOTHING to do with the way Christians were taught to look at the idea of a Messiah.
> 
> It is Christian frustration at the way they were taught about any Messiah which makes them want to harm and kill Jews every time Christians are not happy with what is happening to them.
> 
> 
> So, when is Christianity going to grow up and live its Christian destiny and LEAVE  ALL JEWS BE?
> 
> 
> Of course you would have NO idea about it, since you totally believe
> what you have been taught and come here and repeat all the nonsense which have been taught about Jews since Paul of Tarsus created Christianity for desperate people like himself.
> 
> 
> Now, have a peaceful, loving life towards ALL humans, and leave the Jewish people OUT of your need for a scapegoat for anything bad which may happen in your life or in the whole world, for that matter.
Click to expand...

Are you Jew?
Sound like you are not. Its not christian/muslim upbringing which is teach us. it is jew culture which is tell to jew that they are Gd chosen people. Which is wrong.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As part of the Palestinian Authority’s latest ploy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, it is now absurdly claiming that United Nations Resolution 181, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1947, gave Palestinian Arabs a “right” to a state and the “right” to U.N. membership.
> 
> In fact, U.N. Resolution 181 merely recommended partitioning the remaining 22 percent of the Palestine Mandate into Jewish and Arab states. (The British previously wrongfully carved off 78 percent of the mandate, which Britain held in trust for reestablishing the Jewish homeland, and gave it to Jordan.) A mere recommendation of partition, which the Arabs immediately rejected in favor of a war to annihilate Israel, is not a “right.”
> 
> Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
> The immediate rejection by the Arabs of the 1947 partition plan recommendation rendered the partition recommendation null and void.  Instead of agreeing to partition, six Arab nations promptly launched a war to destroy the Jewish state, in which the Arabs murdered 6,000 Jews—1 percent of Israel’s Jewish population. In that war, Jordan seized, and illegally occupied for 19 years, Judea/Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, containing the Jewish people’s holiest sites. Interestingly, the Palestinian Arabs made no claim for a state when Jordan controlled those areas.
> 
> Further, the United Nations has no right to carve off and grant a Palestinian Arab state in any of Israel’s land. The 1922 Palestine Mandate was a “sacred trust” held by Britain, under international law, for the sole purpose of reconstituting the Jewish homeland. The Palestine Mandate gave no national rights to the Arabs. (“Palestinians” used to mean Jews at that time.) U.N. Charter Article 80 (adopted in 1945) preserved intact—even after expiration of the mandate—all rights granted to the Jewish people under the British Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. Charter thus made it unlawful for the U.N. to alter the Jewish people’s right to the mandatory area via any resolution.  The only lawful method of altering any of Israel’s rights to the Mandatory area (which includes all of Israel and Judea/Samaria), is via agreement by Israel and the party seeking a portion of Israel’s land.
> 
> The P.A. is now also falsely and misleadingly claiming Israel is violating the 1993–1995 Oslo Accords, and that Jerusalem, refugees and settlements must be final-status issues whose status must not be changed pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. First of all, in fact, the Oslo Accords (1995) only state the status of the West Bank and Gaza should not be changed pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. This provision means that the Palestinian Arabs cannot declare a state in Gaza or the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) without negotiations. For years, the P.A. has refused to negotiate. Hence, the P.A.’s desire to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state is unlawful under Oslo.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Palestinian Arabs never received ‘right’ to statehood or UN membership
> 
> 
> 
> But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's Your opinion.
> Fact is everything started about a hundred years before 1948, around the times of Arab pogroms against the Jews throughout the Ottoman empire, including Jews of Levant. Lands in which their communities continuously existed since at least 1000 years before the invention of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agreed as long as jew existence is concern. But the way they exist is wrong for example they live undercover means they live either as mulsim christian hinuds buddhist and more but not as a jew. All I want either jew live normal life with out a cover or give up your idea that you are special race or Masaya is coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 )  If you can make the Christian or Muslim society this "undercover Jews" live in stop wanting them dead, they will stop being "undercover".    But you cannot, and they have every right to live whichever way they want to stay alive as human beings.
> 
> And many are discovering that their ancestor were Jewish and had been FORCED to convert, and returning to being Jewish.
> Being FORCED to convert to Christianity or Islam is not a nice way for Christians and Muslims to behave, IS IT ?
> 
> 
> 2)   Being Jewish is not a RACE, to begin with, that is something Adolf Hitler invented in order to turn Germany and anyone who became Nazi to his ideas of expelling or killing all the Jews.  Ideas he got from his Christian Catholic upbringing.
> 
> 
> 3)    Jews do NOT think of themselves as "special people", that is something your Christian/Muslim upbringing has put in your head.
> 
> 4)  The Jewish Messiah, is NONE of your business, as a Christian or Muslim.   Live your life in a peaceful, loving way and leave all Jews alone.
> 
> The Jewish Messiah is NOT the Christian Messiah, and Jews have absolutely NOTHING to do with the way Christians were taught to look at the idea of a Messiah.
> 
> It is Christian frustration at the way they were taught about any Messiah which makes them want to harm and kill Jews every time Christians are not happy with what is happening to them.
> 
> 
> So, when is Christianity going to grow up and live its Christian destiny and LEAVE  ALL JEWS BE?
> 
> 
> Of course you would have NO idea about it, since you totally believe
> what you have been taught and come here and repeat all the nonsense which have been taught about Jews since Paul of Tarsus created Christianity for desperate people like himself.
> 
> 
> Now, have a peaceful, loving life towards ALL humans, and leave the Jewish people OUT of your need for a scapegoat for anything bad which may happen in your life or in the whole world, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you Jew?
> Sound like you are not. Its not christian/muslim upbringing which is teach us. it is jew culture which is tell to jew that they are Gd chosen people. Which is wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am Jewish and very knowledgeable and very proud of my religion and my people and their history.

Again......you show how ignorant about Jews and Judaism you are.

Jews are the ones who have "chosen" their G-D, and have never EVER thought of themselves as being "chosen".  That is something Christianity has been teaching its followers to make them attack Jews for any reason.

Abraham CHOSE to leave paganism and start on his journey as the first Jew.  The first one to choose to follow his one G-D.

So, you will not answer my question about being Christian or Muslims, but come and ask me if I am a Jewish person.

You were taught well, to dislike, hate, and not believe anything which anyone says about Jews or Judaism.

Your god, be it Jesus or Allah, is NOT  Abraham's chosen G-D.

All three are totally different gods and Jews do not have to follow the Christian or Muslim one AT ALL.

All Jews ask is to be left alone with their beliefs, which they did for 1800 years before Christianity was invented.  And NO ONE before Christianity EVER accused the Jewish people of believing that they were "the chosen people", as you have been taught.

This accusation is just another way to manipulate Christians and Muslims to believe that they must treat Jews in a different way.  Only because the Jews refused to accept Jesus or Allah as their new gods.

Go and live your life peacefully and leave all who are not of your belief in peace, as well.  Which is what Jews have always done, even long before Christianity came to be a religion.

Jews do not hunt and force other people from other religions to become Jewish.  That is something that only Christianity and Islam have been doing since their beginning.


Am Israel Chai.


PS:  you do not wish to tell me if you are a Christian or a Muslim, that is fine.  Your words give away what your upbringing was, and what you do follow.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it is their land and they are native and jew have no right to invade and destroy people of palestine life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's Your opinion.
> Fact is everything started about a hundred years before 1948, around the times of Arab pogroms against the Jews throughout the Ottoman empire, including Jews of Levant. Lands in which their communities continuously existed since at least 1000 years before the invention of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agreed as long as jew existence is concern. But the way they exist is wrong for example they live undercover means they live either as mulsim christian hinuds buddhist and more but not as a jew. All I want either jew live normal life with out a cover or give up your idea that you are special race or Masaya is coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 )  If you can make the Christian or Muslim society this "undercover Jews" live in stop wanting them dead, they will stop being "undercover".    But you cannot, and they have every right to live whichever way they want to stay alive as human beings.
> 
> And many are discovering that their ancestor were Jewish and had been FORCED to convert, and returning to being Jewish.
> Being FORCED to convert to Christianity or Islam is not a nice way for Christians and Muslims to behave, IS IT ?
> 
> 
> 2)   Being Jewish is not a RACE, to begin with, that is something Adolf Hitler invented in order to turn Germany and anyone who became Nazi to his ideas of expelling or killing all the Jews.  Ideas he got from his Christian Catholic upbringing.
> 
> 
> 3)    Jews do NOT think of themselves as "special people", that is something your Christian/Muslim upbringing has put in your head.
> 
> 4)  The Jewish Messiah, is NONE of your business, as a Christian or Muslim.   Live your life in a peaceful, loving way and leave all Jews alone.
> 
> The Jewish Messiah is NOT the Christian Messiah, and Jews have absolutely NOTHING to do with the way Christians were taught to look at the idea of a Messiah.
> 
> It is Christian frustration at the way they were taught about any Messiah which makes them want to harm and kill Jews every time Christians are not happy with what is happening to them.
> 
> 
> So, when is Christianity going to grow up and live its Christian destiny and LEAVE  ALL JEWS BE?
> 
> 
> Of course you would have NO idea about it, since you totally believe
> what you have been taught and come here and repeat all the nonsense which have been taught about Jews since Paul of Tarsus created Christianity for desperate people like himself.
> 
> 
> Now, have a peaceful, loving life towards ALL humans, and leave the Jewish people OUT of your need for a scapegoat for anything bad which may happen in your life or in the whole world, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you Jew?
> Sound like you are not. Its not christian/muslim upbringing which is teach us. it is jew culture which is tell to jew that they are Gd chosen people. Which is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I am Jewish and very knowledgeable and very proud of my religion and my people and their history.
> 
> Again......you show how ignorant about Jews and Judaism you are.
> 
> Jews are the ones who have "chosen" their G-D, and have never EVER thought of themselves as being "chosen".  That is something Christianity has been teaching its followers to make them attack Jews for any reason.
> 
> Abraham CHOSE to leave paganism and start on his journey as the first Jew.  The first one to choose to follow his one G-D.
> 
> So, you will not answer my question about being Christian or Muslims, but come and ask me if I am a Jewish person.
> 
> You were taught well, to dislike, hate, and not believe anything which anyone says about Jews or Judaism.
> 
> Your god, be it Jesus or Allah, is NOT  Abraham's chosen G-D.
> 
> All three are totally different gods and Jews do not have to follow the Christian or Muslim one AT ALL.
> 
> All Jews ask is to be left alone with their beliefs, which they did for 1800 years before Christianity was invented.  And NO ONE before Christianity EVER accused the Jewish people of believing that they were "the chosen people", as you have been taught.
> 
> This accusation is just another way to manipulate Christians and Muslims to believe that they must treat Jews in a different way.  Only because the Jews refused to accept Jesus or Allah as their new gods.
> 
> Go and live your life peacefully and leave all who are not of your belief in peace, as well.  Which is what Jews have always done, even long before Christianity came to be a religion.
> 
> Jews do not hunt and force other people from other religions to become Jewish.  That is something that only Christianity and Islam have been doing since their beginning.
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai.
> 
> 
> PS:  you do not wish to tell me if you are a Christian or a Muslim, that is fine.  Your words give away what your upbringing was, and what you do follow.
Click to expand...


First, Sixties, thanks to introduce yourself as jew and I hope it is real introduction.
Second, I am not ignorant, we learnt and effect from the propaganda around for example if as muslim we don't raise voice against the falls propaganda means falls become true. Similarly if jew don't come forward, it will happen about them too. In your case, your are first jew in 50 years I am discussing.
Third, As you said jew are not chosen then why don't you condemn this thread "Hibru are God chosen People" instead I am condemning it.
Fourth, Abraham PBUH is father figure for all faith and he PBUH can not be jew. And race start from father not start from the 5th generation grand son called Judah or Yahuda. That village in Iraq can be native village. And as father of all faith Abraham PBUH never used g-d. 
G-d This term recently introduced by jew elders to keep separate themselves from Christian/Muslim. 
In my opinion if jew called God so they close to Christian and if Jew called Alla in hibru means they are close to Muslim, as Muslim use this name with different spelling called Allah, God, Alla. Means it show some kind of unity.
Sixth, as I said above there no jew around to raise voice and condemn to this thread that jew are not God chosen people, but a lot of people are pretending jew.
Seven, it is not we christian/muslim it is jew who are leaving the space in between and causing confusion. I request to you that please go to Forum and ask question that any one know any jew personally you will hardly find any.
Seventh, "Your god, be it Jesus or Allah, is NOT  Abraham's chosen G-D." As I said above Abraham PBUH was not jew and His PBUH God was Alla swt, absolutely not g-d. To me it look nice if jew called Alla (Allah, God, Alla).
Eight, That is exactly we are asking to jew leave us alone. Sixties, may be you don't know how intelligence work and I am telling you jew spy network is around. I will give you one hint or thought to think about it. 
What do you think what would be jew population in 5000 years, from Mr, Mrs Abraham PBUH, to me jew population should be 113 million at least, not 13 million only. Please find population expert and tell me too.
Nine, As a christian and muslim we followed 13/14 prophets compare to jew only 6 prophets. It is jew history they don't follow if they don't like means they super seat to themselves over God and not only jew reject Jesus PBUH, Mohammed PBUH, they also reject 6 hebru speaking prophets too.
Tenth, Peace; as jew disturb the peace in holly land and now you are talking about leave us alone and  live peacefully, don't you think it is unfair and unreal.
Eleventh, As jew don't force to others to join jew religion because jew don't want to mix with others because jew consider themselves special race and instead jew believe in divide and rule.

Long Live Palestine.

Note: Jew are not God chosen people, special race and masaya is coming only Jesus PBUH is coming.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Second, I am not ignorant ....



No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am not ignorant ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
Click to expand...

I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am not ignorant ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
Click to expand...

This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.

You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.

Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.

You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".

The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and 
take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.

Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.

It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.


Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am not ignorant ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
Click to expand...

I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews. 

Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.

Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.

Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.

Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?

As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am not ignorant ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
Click to expand...

"As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."

The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone. 

Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.

Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.  
Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.

Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.

So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?

Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.

What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?

You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.

You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.

Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.

That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.

Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.

NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.


So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?

Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.

Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am not ignorant ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
Click to expand...

"Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"

No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.

Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
Never have.
Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.

This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am not ignorant ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.


Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
Click to expand...


Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script. 

Indeed, we have this:

Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:



 

“*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.” 
[Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]


Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict. 

Indeed.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, I am not ignorant ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
Click to expand...


Sixties, Lets start discussion,
Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
Pleased reply briefly,


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
Click to expand...

This is Holy Land trap in politics. Means holly not political.


----------



## Rehmani

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...

hollie, This is holly land issue and has link in history, religion and politics.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
Click to expand...


Do You know?
There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
in the historic homeland.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, you ARE ignorant.  In the purest sense of the word.  You lack knowledge of Judaism, of Jews, of Jewish history and of Jewish beliefs.  Worse than that, you have adopted numerous ideas which are clearly un-true and, worse, blatantly paint the Jewish people, as a whole, as being deliberately evil.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
Click to expand...

Again you wish to discuss something in the wrong thread.
There is a thread to discuss who is indigenous, native to the land of Israel just below this one.

Read the posts in that thread.  The answer is there.


----------



## Sixties Fan

My Right Word: When A Congressman Compared the Jordan River to the Mississippi


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
Click to expand...

You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of c, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you wish to discuss something in the wrong thread.
> There is a thread to discuss who is indigenous, native to the land of Israel just below this one.
> 
> Read the posts in that thread.  The answer is there.
Click to expand...


How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
"Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, who you are? Jew ? let's assume that you are a jew. What ever you said about me, it is story of jews. People know me from different faith and I also know people of different faith but I don't know any jew or otherwise. And it happen to almost everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...

Israel = Lying, stealing, and killing. What is religious about that?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel = Lying, stealing, and killing. What is religious about that?
Click to expand...


More of your pointless blathering. 

It’s actually funny that your denials of the religious elements that drive Islamic terrorism are delineated in explicit terms by your Islamic terrorist heroes.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
Click to expand...


The reason why I brought up international law is to show You that the language of the law already refers to Israel as an indigenous nation.

King Faisal from Mecca, to whom Arabs tried to cede all the land  - agreed to the above as well.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
Click to expand...

You are under the wrong idea that International Law is going to change in favor of any other people as the indigenous people in their ancient Homeland in the Land of Israel, also known as Ancient Canaan.

The only indigenous people to the Land of Israel, or Ancient Canaan are those tribes which lived there at the time, including the Hebrew people, who over 3000 years ago created a Nation out of ALL of the tribes living there with King David as its Monarch. That Nation's monarchy lasted over a thousand years, invaded or not until the Romans closed Jerusalem to all Jews with the destruction of the second Temple.

After the Temple destruction is when the Romans renamed the area after the invading Philistines (Greek invaders) who had defeated the Hebrews before David's time.  David defeated them, freed the land of the invaders and the Nation took shape with all the tribes living there.

The Romans only chose to name the area after the Philistines in order to humiliate the Hebrew/Israelite/Judeans, and hope they would forget about their land and stop fighting for it.

They did not succeed.

Not ONE of the tribes which formed the Israelite/Judean Nation was made of Arab people, which is what today's named Palestinians are.

The ancestors of these Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians came at any time after the 7th Century Kurdish, and then Arab invasion to the area, out of the Arabian Peninsula.

Simply because the Arabs have been calling themselves Palestinians, because of the Mandate for Palestine, and only since 1964 of last century, it does not automatically make them the indigenous, native people of the Land of Israel, Ancient Canaan.   
They continue to be indigenous and native of THEIR ancient homeland, the Arabian Peninsula.

The Arab leaders would like everyone to believe that Jews are Europeans, and that the Arabs are the indigenous people to the Land of Israel, but all of History is against this lie, which was only created in order to delegitimize Jews and Israel and help destroy Israel because the Arabs have totally failed in their violent wars against Israel since 1948, and all attempts to stop Israel from becoming a country before 1948.

International Law is on the side of the Jews and of Israel, the indigenous, native people of THEIR ancient homeland.

The Arabs, Hashemites, got 78% of the Jewish Homeland because, as I told you in another post, the British government is Christian and hates Jews.  The British wanted the rest of the Mandate for Palestine for themselves, after having lost India, and did everything to keep the Jews from declaring Independence over their own homeland.


There were 4 Mandates. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine.
Palestine was the only one which received the wrong name to the area.

Palestine should have been called Israel, but the hatred for Jews made them bring back the name Palestine to call the area, and they gave away to the Arabs 78% of the Jewish homeland in 1922.  By 1925 the Arab Hashemites made sure that there were no Jews living in TransJordan anymore by attacking them and expelling them from their ancient homeland.
To this day Jews are not allowed to buy any land on the ancient homeland of TranJordan, which is now Jordan.

It is the same in Gaza where all Jews were expelled from, first in 1920 and then again in 2005, this time by the Israeli government, hoping the Arabs would want peace.  The Arab Muslims do not want peace with Jews.  They want the Jews to return to being dependent on them, as second class citizens, as they had been since the 7th century Arab Muslim invasion.

The non indigenous Arabs want ALL the indigenous Jews to leave ALL of the indigenous Jewish ancient land, and for that land to become totally Arab.

I hope you got a better understanding of the history of the region and who is the indigenous people, and who is not.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of c, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you wish to discuss something in the wrong thread.
> There is a thread to discuss who is indigenous, native to the land of Israel just below this one.
> 
> Read the posts in that thread.  The answer is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
> "Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.
Click to expand...


You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the creation of Israel, as I have said.
> 
> You wish to discuss how Abraham was not a Jew, etc, etc, that you learned from your sources, books, sites or friends, start a whole new thread in any of the communities on this site.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims who are knowledgable about the Jewish history and the two religions which came out of it 1800 and 2400 years after Judaism began, will tell you how ignorant you are.
> 
> You wish to learn anything, start that thread and discuss all you believe there.  Including why you believe Jews think of themselves as a "chosen People" and are according to you  "A race".
> 
> The Moderators do not like it when people come into any threads and
> take it away from the topic it is meant to discuss.
> 
> Start the thread about all of these and I will come and discuss it with you.  And so will many who are Jews and non Jews.
> 
> It does NOT take being Jewish in order to know Jewish History, which in either case, you seem to INSIST, you know much more than Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all others who actually know the History, culture and religion of the Jewish people, which is NOTHING like what you insist it is.
> 
> 
> Start your thread, because we are not going to discuss anything more about what is not the topic of this thread with you.
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel = Lying, stealing, and killing. What is religious about that?
Click to expand...

I agreed, Jew are not native or ancient or indigenous neither they have numbers in UN.


----------



## Rehmani

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel = Lying, stealing, and killing. What is religious about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of your pointless blathering.
> 
> It’s actually funny that your denials of the religious elements that drive Islamic terrorism are delineated in explicit terms by your Islamic terrorist heroes.
Click to expand...

But who driving them into that direction, Israel, by invasion their native land.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason why I brought up international law is to show You that the language of the law already refers to Israel as an indigenous nation.
> 
> King Faisal from Mecca, to whom Arabs tried to cede all the land  - agreed to the above as well.
Click to expand...

Things will change tomorrow, will you agree?
Do you know the meaning of indigenous? 
I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, Like Aborigines in Australia. And Abraham pbuh was came from Iraqi village and even no one know that where that village is lost?


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are under the wrong idea that International Law is going to change in favor of any other people as the indigenous people in their ancient Homeland in the Land of Israel, also known as Ancient Canaan.
> 
> The only indigenous people to the Land of Israel, or Ancient Canaan are those tribes which lived there at the time, including the Hebrew people, who over 3000 years ago created a Nation out of ALL of the tribes living there with King David as its Monarch. That Nation's monarchy lasted over a thousand years, invaded or not until the Romans closed Jerusalem to all Jews with the destruction of the second Temple.
> 
> After the Temple destruction is when the Romans renamed the area after the invading Philistines (Greek invaders) who had defeated the Hebrews before David's time.  David defeated them, freed the land of the invaders and the Nation took shape with all the tribes living there.
> 
> The Romans only chose to name the area after the Philistines in order to humiliate the Hebrew/Israelite/Judeans, and hope they would forget about their land and stop fighting for it.
> 
> They did not succeed.
> 
> Not ONE of the tribes which formed the Israelite/Judean Nation was made of Arab people, which is what today's named Palestinians are.
> 
> The ancestors of these Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians came at any time after the 7th Century Kurdish, and then Arab invasion to the area, out of the Arabian Peninsula.
> 
> Simply because the Arabs have been calling themselves Palestinians, because of the Mandate for Palestine, and only since 1964 of last century, it does not automatically make them the indigenous, native people of the Land of Israel, Ancient Canaan.
> They continue to be indigenous and native of THEIR ancient homeland, the Arabian Peninsula.
> 
> The Arab leaders would like everyone to believe that Jews are Europeans, and that the Arabs are the indigenous people to the Land of Israel, but all of History is against this lie, which was only created in order to delegitimize Jews and Israel and help destroy Israel because the Arabs have totally failed in their violent wars against Israel since 1948, and all attempts to stop Israel from becoming a country before 1948.
> 
> International Law is on the side of the Jews and of Israel, the indigenous, native people of THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> The Arabs, Hashemites, got 78% of the Jewish Homeland because, as I told you in another post, the British government is Christian and hates Jews.  The British wanted the rest of the Mandate for Palestine for themselves, after having lost India, and did everything to keep the Jews from declaring Independence over their own homeland.
> 
> 
> There were 4 Mandates. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine.
> Palestine was the only one which received the wrong name to the area.
> 
> Palestine should have been called Israel, but the hatred for Jews made them bring back the name Palestine to call the area, and they gave away to the Arabs 78% of the Jewish homeland in 1922.  By 1925 the Arab Hashemites made sure that there were no Jews living in TransJordan anymore by attacking them and expelling them from their ancient homeland.
> To this day Jews are not allowed to buy any land on the ancient homeland of TranJordan, which is now Jordan.
> 
> It is the same in Gaza where all Jews were expelled from, first in 1920 and then again in 2005, this time by the Israeli government, hoping the Arabs would want peace.  The Arab Muslims do not want peace with Jews.  They want the Jews to return to being dependent on them, as second class citizens, as they had been since the 7th century Arab Muslim invasion.
> 
> The non indigenous Arabs want ALL the indigenous Jews to leave ALL of the indigenous Jewish ancient land, and for that land to become totally Arab.
> 
> I hope you got a better understanding of the history of the region and who is the indigenous people, and who is not.
Click to expand...

Please don't run long falls propaganda. Just tell me are you native from palestine holly land.
1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
2).You don't want UN because don't have numbers.
3).Under Saladin+Ottoman holly land were in peace for 900 years. Israel destroyed that lasting peace.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of c, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you wish to discuss something in the wrong thread.
> There is a thread to discuss who is indigenous, native to the land of Israel just below this one.
> 
> Read the posts in that thread.  The answer is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
> "Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
Click to expand...

Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologized, I mixed two thread in one and both are about jews.
> 
> Race always start from the father of the religion and Abraham pbuh is the father and prophet. While Judah was neither.
> 
> Religion sent to earth by God and God is the author, not jew.
> 
> Again I will say it is not others who start this type of discussion, it is jew who pose themselves like this. And they never com forward to reject it.
> 
> Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?
> 
> As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel = Lying, stealing, and killing. What is religious about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agreed, Jew are not native or ancient or indigenous neither they have numbers in UN.
Click to expand...


Jews are not ancient?
We already had a thriving civilization for a millenia when Arabs were still getting drunk in the desert and burying their daughters alive.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason why I brought up international law is to show You that the language of the law already refers to Israel as an indigenous nation.
> 
> King Faisal from Mecca, to whom Arabs tried to cede all the land  - agreed to the above as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change tomorrow, will you agree?
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, Like Aborigines in Australia. And Abraham pbuh was came from Iraqi village and even no one know that where that village is lost?
Click to expand...


Abraham our father PBUH, was one of the last remnants of the Hebrews, he was born in diaspora.
The language everyone spoke in the holy land during his time and the following millenia
was still Hebrew, not Arabic, why is that?

How come the only language in which the word "Palestine" has actual meaning, is Hebrew and not Arabic?


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of the indigenous people who had the right to recreate their nation, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are under the wrong idea that International Law is going to change in favor of any other people as the indigenous people in their ancient Homeland in the Land of Israel, also known as Ancient Canaan.
> 
> The only indigenous people to the Land of Israel, or Ancient Canaan are those tribes which lived there at the time, including the Hebrew people, who over 3000 years ago created a Nation out of ALL of the tribes living there with King David as its Monarch. That Nation's monarchy lasted over a thousand years, invaded or not until the Romans closed Jerusalem to all Jews with the destruction of the second Temple.
> 
> After the Temple destruction is when the Romans renamed the area after the invading Philistines (Greek invaders) who had defeated the Hebrews before David's time.  David defeated them, freed the land of the invaders and the Nation took shape with all the tribes living there.
> 
> The Romans only chose to name the area after the Philistines in order to humiliate the Hebrew/Israelite/Judeans, and hope they would forget about their land and stop fighting for it.
> 
> They did not succeed.
> 
> Not ONE of the tribes which formed the Israelite/Judean Nation was made of Arab people, which is what today's named Palestinians are.
> 
> The ancestors of these Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians came at any time after the 7th Century Kurdish, and then Arab invasion to the area, out of the Arabian Peninsula.
> 
> Simply because the Arabs have been calling themselves Palestinians, because of the Mandate for Palestine, and only since 1964 of last century, it does not automatically make them the indigenous, native people of the Land of Israel, Ancient Canaan.
> They continue to be indigenous and native of THEIR ancient homeland, the Arabian Peninsula.
> 
> The Arab leaders would like everyone to believe that Jews are Europeans, and that the Arabs are the indigenous people to the Land of Israel, but all of History is against this lie, which was only created in order to delegitimize Jews and Israel and help destroy Israel because the Arabs have totally failed in their violent wars against Israel since 1948, and all attempts to stop Israel from becoming a country before 1948.
> 
> International Law is on the side of the Jews and of Israel, the indigenous, native people of THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> The Arabs, Hashemites, got 78% of the Jewish Homeland because, as I told you in another post, the British government is Christian and hates Jews.  The British wanted the rest of the Mandate for Palestine for themselves, after having lost India, and did everything to keep the Jews from declaring Independence over their own homeland.
> 
> 
> There were 4 Mandates. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine.
> Palestine was the only one which received the wrong name to the area.
> 
> Palestine should have been called Israel, but the hatred for Jews made them bring back the name Palestine to call the area, and they gave away to the Arabs 78% of the Jewish homeland in 1922.  By 1925 the Arab Hashemites made sure that there were no Jews living in TransJordan anymore by attacking them and expelling them from their ancient homeland.
> To this day Jews are not allowed to buy any land on the ancient homeland of TranJordan, which is now Jordan.
> 
> It is the same in Gaza where all Jews were expelled from, first in 1920 and then again in 2005, this time by the Israeli government, hoping the Arabs would want peace.  The Arab Muslims do not want peace with Jews.  They want the Jews to return to being dependent on them, as second class citizens, as they had been since the 7th century Arab Muslim invasion.
> 
> The non indigenous Arabs want ALL the indigenous Jews to leave ALL of the indigenous Jewish ancient land, and for that land to become totally Arab.
> 
> I hope you got a better understanding of the history of the region and who is the indigenous people, and who is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please don't run long falls propaganda. Just tell me are you native from palestine holly land.
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).You don't want UN because don't have numbers.
> 3).Under Saladin+Ottoman holly land were in peace for 900 years. Israel destroyed that lasting peace.
Click to expand...


There was peace, like Arabs expelling Jews from all of their holy cities?
Maybe the other 270 million infidels murdered by the Muslim colonialists was peace?


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As you are insisting that I should discuss the actual thread. But what will you say if tomorrow some one else come and invade Israel and give mandate to Palestine and followed by UN authority will you accept it."
> 
> The UN has NOTHING to do with giving anything to anyone.
> 
> Israel was recreated by the descendants of the Hebrew/Israelites, who have not been allowed to be sovereign on their own land for nearly 2000 years.   They have every right to be given the permission to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland, like any other indigenous people on this planet, ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> Again, you do not have the actual facts of how Israel came to be.
> Jews were being oppressed and attacked, robbed of their properties, killed or expelled by any non Jew who  decided they could do anything them, be it in Europe, Africa or the Middle East simply because they were Jews and those Jews could not defend themselves.
> So, at the end of the 19th century, some Jews decided that Europe would not change against the Jews, and would never accept them as equal human beings.  So, it was time to return to their ancient homeland and join all the Jews who were already there and earn the right to recreate their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> Nothing wrong with that, as it is not wrong for any other indigenous people to so so.
> 
> Jews gained the right to recreate their ancient Nation ON their ancient homeland after WWI.  The Arabs, like the Turkish Ottoman, are the invaders of the land.  You seem to think that the Arabs who lived there 100 years, or 1000 years ago are the indigenous people of that land, and not the Jewish People BOTH  Kurds, Arabs and Turkish invaders met on that land, since the Jews were the indigenous people there, and it actually says so in their Islamic holy book, the Quran.
> 
> So, why do you believe that the Jews are the ones invading the Land of Israel, instead of simply returning to their ancient homeland,  and not those who were actually the invaders since the 7th century CE ?
> 
> Millions of non Jews live in Israel, but Jews have been expelled from all the Arab countries in order to attempt to destroy Israel in 1950/1951.  In other words, NOW, there are no Jews at all in most of the Arab/Muslim countries, Jordan which was part of the Mandate for Palestine as the Nation for the Jewish people ( it is part of the ancient homeland for the Jews) was given to foreign Arabs, the Hashemites, who only moved to TransJordan around 1915 when they were kicked out by the Saud Clan of Yemen who invaded and took over their land in what is now Saudi Arabia.
> 
> What right did the Hashemites have to receive 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, when they are not Jewish at all, and had not been included in the people who were to receive that Mandate?
> 
> You are not aware that there were Four Mandates after WWI.  Not one of the other 3 went to its indigenous people, they went to the Arab invaders.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are Arab countries, because they were invaded by the Arabs of Arabia, and England and France decided they would give ALL of that land only to the invading Arabs, and NONE to any of c, like the Kurds.
> 
> You do seem to be out of touch with facts, where the invading Arabs on the Land of Israel have been attempting to invade and destroy Israel and make the Jews their servants again, as they were since the Arab Muslim invasion in the 7th Century.
> 
> Arabs began to attack the Jews and kill and expelled them from their homes since 1920, when their leader Husseini could not accept that the hated Jews would be given sovereignty over any land conquered by any Muslim.
> 
> That is the mentality the Jews have encountered since the Balfour Declaration and their right to recreate their Nation on their ancient homeland.
> 
> Many Arab Christians and Muslims want to live in peace with the Jews and Israel, but the Arab League (created in 1945 to plan to destroy the new Jewish Nation)  only see a Middle East without Israel, and without any Jews at all.
> 
> NO JEWS at all is their FINAL solution, a solution Husseini helped Hitler come to as he did not want the Jews to come home to Palestine and take any land conquered by the Muslims.
> That is why 6 Million Jews were murdered in Europe, because ONE Muslim Arab did not want them to come home to their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> So, who are the indigenous people and who are the invaders of the Land of Israel?
> 
> Do the Jews have the right to recreate their Nation, as they did, slowly with a lot of work, with hard work and sweat and the blood the Muslims took from them after attacking them since 1920, or not?
> Blood the Muslims continue to insist in taking as they attack as many civilians as they can and kill as many Jews as they can ONLY because they are Jews.  Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land.
> 
> Or are you going to insist, again, that the Jews invaded their own ancient homeland and took away land that did not belong to them, instead of earning it legally, with the consent of many Nations at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you wish to discuss something in the wrong thread.
> There is a thread to discuss who is indigenous, native to the land of Israel just below this one.
> 
> Read the posts in that thread.  The answer is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
> "Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
Click to expand...


Where's holly land?

Have you heard of this place, btw?


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...



In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Once I asked qestion to one Rabi that if some one want to become a jew, the Rabi replied almost imposible. What will you say?"
> 
> No, it is not impossible to become a Jew.  Many do it.  They have to really want to.  Those who did not finalize becoming Jews are the ones who in the end did not really want to become Jews.
> They have to want it 100%.   It is no different to wanting to become a doctor or anything else where knowledge is important and one must be sincere with their hearts that it is what they want.
> 
> Also, Jews do not go around forcing others to convert to Judaism.
> Never have.
> Christianity and Islam have been doing so since their founding and have murdered many people who did not want to either become or  stay Christian or Muslim.
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread.  I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This response would belong in the religion community and it is the last time I will answer anything not having to do with the topic of this thread. I am doing so, only to give you the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel = Lying, stealing, and killing. What is religious about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agreed, Jew are not native or ancient or indigenous neither they have numbers in UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews are not ancient?
> We already had a thriving civilization for a millenia when Arabs were still getting drunk in the desert and burying their daughters alive.
Click to expand...

Where? in a small Iraqi village? by the way can you tell us where they have gone from there?


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason why I brought up international law is to show You that the language of the law already refers to Israel as an indigenous nation.
> 
> King Faisal from Mecca, to whom Arabs tried to cede all the land  - agreed to the above as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change tomorrow, will you agree?
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, Like Aborigines in Australia. And Abraham pbuh was came from Iraqi village and even no one know that where that village is lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham our father PBUH, was one of the last remnants of the Hebrews, he was born in diaspora.
> The language everyone spoke in the holy land during his time and the following millenia
> was still Hebrew, not Arabic, why is that?
> 
> How come the only language in which the word "Palestine" has actual meaning, is Hebrew and not Arabic?
Click to expand...

Holly land is not your native then how every one will speak hebrew. I am sure the lost village in iraq not every one spoke hebrew either but may  be ancient Persian.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason why I brought up international law is to show You that the language of the law already refers to Israel as an indigenous nation.
> 
> King Faisal from Mecca, to whom Arabs tried to cede all the land  - agreed to the above as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change tomorrow, will you agree?
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, Like Aborigines in Australia. And Abraham pbuh was came from Iraqi village and even no one know that where that village is lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham our father PBUH, was one of the last remnants of the Hebrews, he was born in diaspora.
> The language everyone spoke in the holy land during his time and the following millenia
> was still Hebrew, not Arabic, why is that?
> 
> How come the only language in which the word "Palestine" has actual meaning, is Hebrew and not Arabic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holly land is not your native then how every one will speak hebrew. I am sure the lost village in iraq not every one spoke hebrew either but may  be ancient Persian.
Click to expand...


So how come they all spoke Hebrew in the land?
There's no meaning in Arabic for the word "Palestine", only in Hebrew.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is a lot of religion discussed on this board. This is a political not a religious problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel = Lying, stealing, and killing. What is religious about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agreed, Jew are not native or ancient or indigenous neither they have numbers in UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews are not ancient?
> We already had a thriving civilization for a millenia when Arabs were still getting drunk in the desert and burying their daughters alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where? in a small Iraqi village? by the way can you tell us where they have gone from there?
Click to expand...

All you are doing is playing games.

The man who started Judaism may have come from somewhere in Mesopotamia, but MOST peoples who followed him and his One G-D were indigenous people from the Land of Canaan where he migrated from Ur.

It is cute when people attempt to delegitimize the Jewish history and rights to their ancient land, exactly the way you are doing it.

But it is only that.  Cute.

Not historical, not respectful.

I will bet that you do not go around telling other peoples that they are not the indigenous people of the place where their ancient history began and evolved, anywhere in the rest of the planet.

Only Jews.  Only Israel.

And that .......is not cute.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do You know?
> There's a reason why international law defines Jewish self-determination as "re-constitution"
> in the historic homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are under the wrong idea that International Law is going to change in favor of any other people as the indigenous people in their ancient Homeland in the Land of Israel, also known as Ancient Canaan.
> 
> The only indigenous people to the Land of Israel, or Ancient Canaan are those tribes which lived there at the time, including the Hebrew people, who over 3000 years ago created a Nation out of ALL of the tribes living there with King David as its Monarch. That Nation's monarchy lasted over a thousand years, invaded or not until the Romans closed Jerusalem to all Jews with the destruction of the second Temple.
> 
> After the Temple destruction is when the Romans renamed the area after the invading Philistines (Greek invaders) who had defeated the Hebrews before David's time.  David defeated them, freed the land of the invaders and the Nation took shape with all the tribes living there.
> 
> The Romans only chose to name the area after the Philistines in order to humiliate the Hebrew/Israelite/Judeans, and hope they would forget about their land and stop fighting for it.
> 
> They did not succeed.
> 
> Not ONE of the tribes which formed the Israelite/Judean Nation was made of Arab people, which is what today's named Palestinians are.
> 
> The ancestors of these Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians came at any time after the 7th Century Kurdish, and then Arab invasion to the area, out of the Arabian Peninsula.
> 
> Simply because the Arabs have been calling themselves Palestinians, because of the Mandate for Palestine, and only since 1964 of last century, it does not automatically make them the indigenous, native people of the Land of Israel, Ancient Canaan.
> They continue to be indigenous and native of THEIR ancient homeland, the Arabian Peninsula.
> 
> The Arab leaders would like everyone to believe that Jews are Europeans, and that the Arabs are the indigenous people to the Land of Israel, but all of History is against this lie, which was only created in order to delegitimize Jews and Israel and help destroy Israel because the Arabs have totally failed in their violent wars against Israel since 1948, and all attempts to stop Israel from becoming a country before 1948.
> 
> International Law is on the side of the Jews and of Israel, the indigenous, native people of THEIR ancient homeland.
> 
> The Arabs, Hashemites, got 78% of the Jewish Homeland because, as I told you in another post, the British government is Christian and hates Jews.  The British wanted the rest of the Mandate for Palestine for themselves, after having lost India, and did everything to keep the Jews from declaring Independence over their own homeland.
> 
> 
> There were 4 Mandates. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine.
> Palestine was the only one which received the wrong name to the area.
> 
> Palestine should have been called Israel, but the hatred for Jews made them bring back the name Palestine to call the area, and they gave away to the Arabs 78% of the Jewish homeland in 1922.  By 1925 the Arab Hashemites made sure that there were no Jews living in TransJordan anymore by attacking them and expelling them from their ancient homeland.
> To this day Jews are not allowed to buy any land on the ancient homeland of TranJordan, which is now Jordan.
> 
> It is the same in Gaza where all Jews were expelled from, first in 1920 and then again in 2005, this time by the Israeli government, hoping the Arabs would want peace.  The Arab Muslims do not want peace with Jews.  They want the Jews to return to being dependent on them, as second class citizens, as they had been since the 7th century Arab Muslim invasion.
> 
> The non indigenous Arabs want ALL the indigenous Jews to leave ALL of the indigenous Jewish ancient land, and for that land to become totally Arab.
> 
> I hope you got a better understanding of the history of the region and who is the indigenous people, and who is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please don't run long falls propaganda. Just tell me are you native from palestine holly land.
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).You don't want UN because don't have numbers.
> 3).Under Saladin+Ottoman holly land were in peace for 900 years. Israel destroyed that lasting peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was peace, like Arabs expelling Jews from all of their holy cities?
> Maybe the other 270 million infidels murdered by the Muslim colonialists was peace?
> 
> Its a propaganda.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rehmani

Mindful said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties, Lets start discussion,
> Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> Pleased reply briefly,
> 
> 
> 
> Again you wish to discuss something in the wrong thread.
> There is a thread to discuss who is indigenous, native to the land of Israel just below this one.
> 
> Read the posts in that thread.  The answer is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
> "Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
Click to expand...


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you wish to discuss something in the wrong thread.
> There is a thread to discuss who is indigenous, native to the land of Israel just below this one.
> 
> Read the posts in that thread.  The answer is there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
> "Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
Guess why?


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
Click to expand...

Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you wish to discuss something in the wrong thread.
> There is a thread to discuss who is indigenous, native to the land of Israel just below this one.
> 
> Read the posts in that thread.  The answer is there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
> "Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Lesson in geography:

This is the Arabian Peninsula, and NO, it has not been "invaded" by Israel, and NO it is NOT the Holy Land, and never was.

But YES, the Arabs ARE indigenous and native of that ancient Arabian Land.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
Click to expand...


Geography Lesson Number 2:

Today's Iraq was Mesopotamia.

Mesopotamia is NOT in the Arabian Peninsula.


----------



## Shusha

The holiness of the holy land arose from Jewish culture and the Jewish faith and the Jewish people's relationship with G-d.  The reason its holy is because of the Jewish people's relationship with G-d.  Everyone else just jumped on that bus.  (And by "jumped on", I mean stole).

If you want it to be holy to you too -- we have no problem with that.  But when the only way for it to be holy for you is to erase the Jewish people and Jewish history, YOU are the ones who are defying G-d (not to mention historical reality).  Not us.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
Click to expand...


Do You think that Africa and Spain are also "Arab lands"?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
Click to expand...

As I posted a few times for your education, the Jewish People are formed of ALL the tribes which lived in Ancient Canaan, which you do not seem to know where it is.

Abraham's family married with the people of Ancient Canaan, so YES, their descendants AND what became the Nation of Israel are 
Indigenous, native of the Land of Canaan, Israel, the Holy Land.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.



Translation:  Jewish, as a culture, can't exist because there is only Arab.  

Gee, thanks for erasing an entire culture.  Its especially cool that you erased an entire culture that PRE-EXISTED the Arab culture which you claim is the only "true culture" TM in the area.  Neat trick.  Ugly.  But neat trick.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the meaning of these words very well. Exactly I asked to sixties when law change in favor of Palestine, you will accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why I brought up international law is to show You that the language of the law already refers to Israel as an indigenous nation.
> 
> King Faisal from Mecca, to whom Arabs tried to cede all the land  - agreed to the above as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change tomorrow, will you agree?
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, Like Aborigines in Australia. And Abraham pbuh was came from Iraqi village and even no one know that where that village is lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham our father PBUH, was one of the last remnants of the Hebrews, he was born in diaspora.
> The language everyone spoke in the holy land during his time and the following millenia
> was still Hebrew, not Arabic, why is that?
> 
> How come the only language in which the word "Palestine" has actual meaning, is Hebrew and not Arabic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holly land is not your native then how every one will speak hebrew. I am sure the lost village in iraq not every one spoke hebrew either but may  be ancient Persian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how come they all spoke Hebrew in the land?
> There's no meaning in Arabic for the word "Palestine", only in Hebrew.
Click to expand...

You tell me how come? while its Arab land and Arab are Native from there.
Second there was only a holly land before british and french invaded Holly land for 900 years. But they divided the holly land into four countries so they can accommodate Israel and no one claim holly land and keep Syria out of it too.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.



Basically saying that Jews don't exist because Abraham (and all his descendants) are actually Arabs.  Cultural genocide.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed you’re befuddled. When “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter, its apparent, indeed, you need a new script.
> 
> Indeed, we have this:
> 
> Instead of heeding the call of the US administration, the PA made a positive decision to waive the US aid and continue its ”Pay for Slay“ policy, with Abbas declaring that the PA prioritizes rewarding terrorist prisoners rather than taking care of the rest of the Palestinian population:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “*By* *Allah*, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people.”
> [Official PA TV, July 24, 2018]
> 
> 
> Indeed, when your hero Abbas appeals to your Allah god, it suggest that this is indeed, a religious conflict.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel = Lying, stealing, and killing. What is religious about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agreed, Jew are not native or ancient or indigenous neither they have numbers in UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews are not ancient?
> We already had a thriving civilization for a millenia when Arabs were still getting drunk in the desert and burying their daughters alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where? in a small Iraqi village? by the way can you tell us where they have gone from there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you are doing is playing games.
> 
> The man who started Judaism may have come from somewhere in Mesopotamia, but MOST peoples who followed him and his One G-D were indigenous people from the Land of Canaan where he migrated from Ur.
> 
> It is cute when people attempt to delegitimize the Jewish history and rights to their ancient land, exactly the way you are doing it.
> 
> But it is only that.  Cute.
> 
> Not historical, not respectful.
> 
> I will bet that you do not go around telling other peoples that they are not the indigenous people of the place where their ancient history began and evolved, anywhere in the rest of the planet.
> 
> Only Jews.  Only Israel.
> 
> And that .......is not cute.
Click to expand...

Please don't run long falls propaganda. Just tell me are you native from palestine holly land.
1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
2).You don't want UN because don't have numbers.
3).Under Saladin+Ottoman holly land were in peace for 900 years. Israel destroyed that lasting peace.
4). Who kicked jew out? Roman.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why I brought up international law is to show You that the language of the law already refers to Israel as an indigenous nation.
> 
> King Faisal from Mecca, to whom Arabs tried to cede all the land  - agreed to the above as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change tomorrow, will you agree?
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, Like Aborigines in Australia. And Abraham pbuh was came from Iraqi village and even no one know that where that village is lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham our father PBUH, was one of the last remnants of the Hebrews, he was born in diaspora.
> The language everyone spoke in the holy land during his time and the following millenia
> was still Hebrew, not Arabic, why is that?
> 
> How come the only language in which the word "Palestine" has actual meaning, is Hebrew and not Arabic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holly land is not your native then how every one will speak hebrew. I am sure the lost village in iraq not every one spoke hebrew either but may  be ancient Persian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how come they all spoke Hebrew in the land?
> There's no meaning in Arabic for the word "Palestine", only in Hebrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me how come? while its Arab land and Arab are Native from there.
> Second there was only a holly land before british and french invaded Holly land for 900 years. But they divided the holly land into four countries so they can accommodate Israel and no one claim holly land and keep Syria out of it too.
Click to expand...


Arabs can't even pronounce the first letter in the word "Palestine",
how did they appear in a land which name they can't even pronounce?


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
> "Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
Click to expand...

Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why I brought up international law is to show You that the language of the law already refers to Israel as an indigenous nation.
> 
> King Faisal from Mecca, to whom Arabs tried to cede all the land  - agreed to the above as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change tomorrow, will you agree?
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, Like Aborigines in Australia. And Abraham pbuh was came from Iraqi village and even no one know that where that village is lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham our father PBUH, was one of the last remnants of the Hebrews, he was born in diaspora.
> The language everyone spoke in the holy land during his time and the following millenia
> was still Hebrew, not Arabic, why is that?
> 
> How come the only language in which the word "Palestine" has actual meaning, is Hebrew and not Arabic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holly land is not your native then how every one will speak hebrew. I am sure the lost village in iraq not every one spoke hebrew either but may  be ancient Persian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how come they all spoke Hebrew in the land?
> There's no meaning in Arabic for the word "Palestine", only in Hebrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me how come? while its Arab land and Arab are Native from there.
> Second there was only a holly land before british and french invaded Holly land for 900 years. But they divided the holly land into four countries so they can accommodate Israel and no one claim holly land and keep Syria out of it too.
Click to expand...

HISTORY  lesson :

It was the Ottoman Turks who had conquered the Holy Land/Israel for 800 years, from the European Crusaders.

And you are going to continue to miss the geography lesson on purpose?

The Arabian Peninsula is ON the holy land, Ancient Canaan?

How did that happen?

The French and British WON the Ottoman Empire Land after the Ottomans LOST   WWI  along with the Germans who started that war.

As the winners of that war, the French and British had every right to do with the land what they wanted.  So....they divided the Middle East part, not counting Iran and Arabia, into four parts.

Three parts, 99 % of the land went to Muslim Arabs.  The Arabs not being indigenous of any of those three Mandates.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

1 %  went legally to the descendants of the indigenous people of the land of Israel.  The Jews.

But even out of that 1 % , 78 % of it was given to an Arab Muslim tribe, the Hashemites, leaving the Jews with a very, very small part of it.  By the way.....ALL Jews living in TransJordan were attacked and expelled and told they could never live there again.

in 1920 the Jews were expelled from another part of it.  Gaza.
Were only allowed to return to their homeland in Gaza in 1967.
To be expelled again in 2005.


Now, as I have explained again how MOST of the ancient Jewish Homeland/Holy Land ended up in Arab Muslim hands, thanks first to the British giving the Hashemite tribe 78% of Jewish Land.......


Do you have any other questions, or is it finally clear as to what happened, and who got MOST of the Jewish Ancient Homeland?


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Please don't run long falls propaganda. Just tell me are you native from palestine holly land.
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).You don't want UN because don't have numbers.
> 3).Under Saladin+Ottoman holly land were in peace for 900 years. Israel destroyed that lasting peace.
> 4). Who kicked jew out? Roman.



We ARE telling you.  The Jewish people, and ONLY the Jewish people are indigenous to the territory you are labeling the "holy land".  The Jewish people and ONLY the Jewish people are native, indigenous and ancient.  

Arguing that the Jewish people are NOT indigenous is just plain silly and blatantly contrary to known reality.  Now, you COULD make an argument that the Arab Palestinians are ALSO indigenous (its a stretch, but can be done -- Ryan Bellerose does it effectively).  But arguing that the Jewish people are not indigenous is just silly.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How silly, You are the one who used these words in your long post previously.
> "Real Jews, the indigenous Jews of the Land." "So, who are the indigenous people". "to their ancient homeland."
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).Why don't you acknowledge UN, because you don't have numbers. Because you want both side ups/down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson in geography:
> 
> This is the Arabian Peninsula, and NO, it has not been "invaded" by Israel, and NO it is NOT the Holy Land, and never was.
> 
> But YES, the Arabs ARE indigenous and native of that ancient Arabian Land.
Click to expand...

Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> 
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
Click to expand...

The only peace Muslims know from Jews and Christians, is if they are at the Muslim's feet being treated like dogs.

Which is what happened again and again, during the 1300 years before the recreation of the Nation of Israel .

Many attacks on Jews.  For any reason.  Many Jewish lives lost.
For any reason.

You live in a fantasy of a 900 years of peace which never existed.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> [
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.



What MAKES it Arab land?


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geography Lesson Number 2:
> 
> Today's Iraq was Mesopotamia.
> 
> Mesopotamia is NOT in the Arabian Peninsula.
Click to expand...

Iraq was center for Arab empire for long time.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> 
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
Click to expand...


And ironically Arabs call themselves invaders when they identify as "Palestinians".
That's* exactly* what the word means, they would know it if they spoke the native language.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You think that Africa and Spain are also "Arab lands"?
Click to expand...

Jew are not native in holly land.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I posted a few times for your education, the Jewish People are formed of ALL the tribes which lived in Ancient Canaan, which you do not seem to know where it is.
> 
> Abraham's family married with the people of Ancient Canaan, so YES, their descendants AND what became the Nation of Israel are
> Indigenous, native of the Land of Canaan, Israel, the Holy Land.
Click to expand...

But you don't know that jew race run by the mother while science said otherwise.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should go take a look at the other thread so you can see what the UN says about indigeneity.
> 
> 
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson in geography:
> 
> This is the Arabian Peninsula, and NO, it has not been "invaded" by Israel, and NO it is NOT the Holy Land, and never was.
> 
> But YES, the Arabs ARE indigenous and native of that ancient Arabian Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.
Click to expand...

In the 21st Century, yes.

In the time of Abraham, NO.
In the time of Moses, NO.
In the time of King David, NO.
In the time of the Philistine invasion.  NO.
In the time of the Greek invasion, NO.
In the time of the Roman Invasion, NO.
In the time of the Byzantine Invasion, NO.
In the time of the Kurdish Muslim invasion, NO.
In the time of the Arab Muslim invasion, NO.

It is only from the 7th Century CE on, with slow invasion into some parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, that some of those land became populated by Arabs and Arabic became the spoken language.

The Indigenous people still speak their indigenous language in many if not ALL of these lands.  They still live there, Arab majority or not.

The Copts, Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, etc


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You think that Africa and Spain are also "Arab lands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew are not native in holly land.
Click to expand...

Jews, being descendants of the Hebrews and Israelites ARE most definitely NATIVE to the Holy Land.  You like it or not.

And NO, Jews are not from "Europe".


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  Jewish, as a culture, can't exist because there is only Arab.
> 
> Gee, thanks for erasing an entire culture.  Its especially cool that you erased an entire culture that PRE-EXISTED the Arab culture which you claim is the only "true culture" TM in the area.  Neat trick.  Ugly.  But neat trick.
Click to expand...

well then you should tell me where are all these jews have gone means undercover of 100 million.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I posted a few times for your education, the Jewish People are formed of ALL the tribes which lived in Ancient Canaan, which you do not seem to know where it is.
> 
> Abraham's family married with the people of Ancient Canaan, so YES, their descendants AND what became the Nation of Israel are
> Indigenous, native of the Land of Canaan, Israel, the Holy Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't know that jew race run by the mother while science said otherwise.
Click to expand...

Something else you do not understand, but you want to make an issue of.

There is NO Jewish race.

Jews are an ethnicity.

Find out what that means.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  Jewish, as a culture, can't exist because there is only Arab.
> 
> Gee, thanks for erasing an entire culture.  Its especially cool that you erased an entire culture that PRE-EXISTED the Arab culture which you claim is the only "true culture" TM in the area.  Neat trick.  Ugly.  But neat trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well then you should tell me where are all these jews have gone means undercover of 100 million.
Click to expand...

Explain this sentence.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically saying that Jews don't exist because Abraham (and all his descendants) are actually Arabs.  Cultural genocide.
Click to expand...

You should tell me then where they come from may be Gene


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change tomorrow, will you agree?
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, Like Aborigines in Australia. And Abraham pbuh was came from Iraqi village and even no one know that where that village is lost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham our father PBUH, was one of the last remnants of the Hebrews, he was born in diaspora.
> The language everyone spoke in the holy land during his time and the following millenia
> was still Hebrew, not Arabic, why is that?
> 
> How come the only language in which the word "Palestine" has actual meaning, is Hebrew and not Arabic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holly land is not your native then how every one will speak hebrew. I am sure the lost village in iraq not every one spoke hebrew either but may  be ancient Persian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how come they all spoke Hebrew in the land?
> There's no meaning in Arabic for the word "Palestine", only in Hebrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me how come? while its Arab land and Arab are Native from there.
> Second there was only a holly land before british and french invaded Holly land for 900 years. But they divided the holly land into four countries so they can accommodate Israel and no one claim holly land and keep Syria out of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs can't even pronounce the first letter in the word "Palestine",
> how did they appear in a land which name they can't even pronounce?
Click to expand...

Because they are there from ancient time its jew invade their land.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically saying that Jews don't exist because Abraham (and all his descendants) are actually Arabs.  Cultural genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should tell me then where they come from may be Gene
Click to expand...

I do not understand what you mean by this sentence.  Please explain.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham our father PBUH, was one of the last remnants of the Hebrews, he was born in diaspora.
> The language everyone spoke in the holy land during his time and the following millenia
> was still Hebrew, not Arabic, why is that?
> 
> How come the only language in which the word "Palestine" has actual meaning, is Hebrew and not Arabic?
> 
> 
> 
> Holly land is not your native then how every one will speak hebrew. I am sure the lost village in iraq not every one spoke hebrew either but may  be ancient Persian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how come they all spoke Hebrew in the land?
> There's no meaning in Arabic for the word "Palestine", only in Hebrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me how come? while its Arab land and Arab are Native from there.
> Second there was only a holly land before british and french invaded Holly land for 900 years. But they divided the holly land into four countries so they can accommodate Israel and no one claim holly land and keep Syria out of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs can't even pronounce the first letter in the word "Palestine",
> how did they appear in a land which name they can't even pronounce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are there from ancient time its jew invade their land.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that Arabs are not indigenous from the Arabian Peninsula?

And that at the time of Abraham, Ancient Canaan was already populated by Arabs?

Which ancient history book did you get this idea from?


----------



## fncceo

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You think that Africa and Spain are also "Arab lands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew are not native in holly land.
Click to expand...


I think you'll find that's entirely not true.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't run long falls propaganda. Just tell me are you native from palestine holly land.
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).You don't want UN because don't have numbers.
> 3).Under Saladin+Ottoman holly land were in peace for 900 years. Israel destroyed that lasting peace.
> 4). Who kicked jew out? Roman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We ARE telling you.  The Jewish people, and ONLY the Jewish people are indigenous to the territory you are labeling the "holy land".  The Jewish people and ONLY the Jewish people are native, indigenous and ancient.
> 
> Arguing that the Jewish people are NOT indigenous is just plain silly and blatantly contrary to known reality.  Now, you COULD make an argument that the Arab Palestinians are ALSO indigenous (its a stretch, but can be done -- Ryan Bellerose does it effectively).  But arguing that the Jewish people are not indigenous is just silly.
Click to expand...

Ask to your teacher he will tell you that if you migrated from some where, you can not be native.


----------



## fncceo

Rehmani said:


> they come from may be Gene



Pretty sure my mum was never that cool...


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only peace Muslims know from Jews and Christians, is if they are at the Muslim's feet being treated like dogs.
> 
> Which is what happened again and again, during the 1300 years before the recreation of the Nation of Israel .
> 
> Many attacks on Jews.  For any reason.  Many Jewish lives lost.
> For any reason.
> 
> You live in a fantasy of a 900 years of peace which never existed.
Click to expand...

jew are not native and you can change the history by making falls propaganda.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What MAKES it Arab land?
Click to expand...

Ask to your teacher.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't run long falls propaganda. Just tell me are you native from palestine holly land.
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).You don't want UN because don't have numbers.
> 3).Under Saladin+Ottoman holly land were in peace for 900 years. Israel destroyed that lasting peace.
> 4). Who kicked jew out? Roman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We ARE telling you.  The Jewish people, and ONLY the Jewish people are indigenous to the territory you are labeling the "holy land".  The Jewish people and ONLY the Jewish people are native, indigenous and ancient.
> 
> Arguing that the Jewish people are NOT indigenous is just plain silly and blatantly contrary to known reality.  Now, you COULD make an argument that the Arab Palestinians are ALSO indigenous (its a stretch, but can be done -- Ryan Bellerose does it effectively).  But arguing that the Jewish people are not indigenous is just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask to your teacher he will tell you that if you migrated from some where, you can not be native.
Click to expand...

Ok, so.....by your logic......since ALL  ARABS   migrated from the Arabian Peninsula to the areas of Iran, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, Ancient Canaan, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Spain, etc.......after the 7th century C. E.........

Then they are definitely NOT native of any of those places.

Agree?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only peace Muslims know from Jews and Christians, is if they are at the Muslim's feet being treated like dogs.
> 
> Which is what happened again and again, during the 1300 years before the recreation of the Nation of Israel .
> 
> Many attacks on Jews.  For any reason.  Many Jewish lives lost.
> For any reason.
> 
> You live in a fantasy of a 900 years of peace which never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not native and you can change the history by making falls propaganda.
Click to expand...

To you it is false propaganda.  To the real world it is history which actually happened.  

For Real.  To real people.

And there are documents and history books to prove it.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ironically Arabs call themselves invaders when they identify as "Palestinians".
> That's* exactly* what the word means, they would know it if they spoke the native language.
Click to expand...

This name given by you to holly land to accommodate Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What MAKES it Arab land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask to your teacher.
Click to expand...

You make accusations and you ask questions, but you cannot answer questions.

What could be the problem here?

We answer questions, but you will not.

Truly, what do you think is going on here?


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its is you and yours propagandist gang don't accepting the truth that jew are not indigenous of holly land but Arab are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson in geography:
> 
> This is the Arabian Peninsula, and NO, it has not been "invaded" by Israel, and NO it is NOT the Holy Land, and never was.
> 
> But YES, the Arabs ARE indigenous and native of that ancient Arabian Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the 21st Century, yes.
> 
> In the time of Abraham, NO.
> In the time of Moses, NO.
> In the time of King David, NO.
> In the time of the Philistine invasion.  NO.
> In the time of the Greek invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Roman Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Byzantine Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Kurdish Muslim invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Arab Muslim invasion, NO.
> 
> It is only from the 7th Century CE on, with slow invasion into some parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, that some of those land became populated by Arabs and Arabic became the spoken language.
> 
> The Indigenous people still speak their indigenous language in many if not ALL of these lands.  They still live there, Arab majority or not.
> 
> The Copts, Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, etc
Click to expand...

What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You think that Africa and Spain are also "Arab lands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew are not native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews, being descendants of the Hebrews and Israelites ARE most definitely NATIVE to the Holy Land.  You like it or not.
> 
> And NO, Jews are not from "Europe".
Click to expand...

Whole world knows jew came from Iraq but you can not find single jew in Iraq.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> ... if you migrated from some where, you can not be native.



I think you've got it!  

Tell me where did the Jewish people (culture) originate?  Where did the Jewish culture and religion come into being?


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I posted a few times for your education, the Jewish People are formed of ALL the tribes which lived in Ancient Canaan, which you do not seem to know where it is.
> 
> Abraham's family married with the people of Ancient Canaan, so YES, their descendants AND what became the Nation of Israel are
> Indigenous, native of the Land of Canaan, Israel, the Holy Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't know that jew race run by the mother while science said otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something else you do not understand, but you want to make an issue of.
> 
> There is NO Jewish race.
> 
> Jews are an ethnicity.
> 
> Find out what that means.
Click to expand...

Jew are racist.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ironically Arabs call themselves invaders when they identify as "Palestinians".
> That's* exactly* what the word means, they would know it if they spoke the native language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This name given by you to holly land to accommodate Israel.
Click to expand...

The Invading Romans named the Holy land  :

Syria Palaestina - Wikipedia


But you do not know that.

As I said before, they did it to humiliate the JEWS, indigenous of the land, who had been creating revolutions against the Roman conquest of the land.

They also closed Jerusalem to the Jews, as it was the capital of their Nation.

But you do not know that.


The word Philistine means Invaders.

The word Palestinians means Invaders.

The word Palestinians comes from the word Philistines, and both mean Invaders.


There is not letter P in Arabic, so there is no way the Arabs could EVER have named themselves or the region Palestinians or Palestine.


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You think that Africa and Spain are also "Arab lands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew are not native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews, being descendants of the Hebrews and Israelites ARE most definitely NATIVE to the Holy Land.  You like it or not.
> 
> And NO, Jews are not from "Europe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whole world knows jew came from Iraq but you can not find single jew in Iraq.
Click to expand...


Why's that, do you think?


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  Jewish, as a culture, can't exist because there is only Arab.
> 
> Gee, thanks for erasing an entire culture.  Its especially cool that you erased an entire culture that PRE-EXISTED the Arab culture which you claim is the only "true culture" TM in the area.  Neat trick.  Ugly.  But neat trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well then you should tell me where are all these jews have gone means undercover of 100 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain this sentence.
Click to expand...

As you said I erased a culture.  
I am asking you then you should tell me where they all disappear if didn't erase them.


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lesson in geography:
> 
> This is the Arabian Peninsula, and NO, it has not been "invaded" by Israel, and NO it is NOT the Holy Land, and never was.
> 
> But YES, the Arabs ARE indigenous and native of that ancient Arabian Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the 21st Century, yes.
> 
> In the time of Abraham, NO.
> In the time of Moses, NO.
> In the time of King David, NO.
> In the time of the Philistine invasion.  NO.
> In the time of the Greek invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Roman Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Byzantine Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Kurdish Muslim invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Arab Muslim invasion, NO.
> 
> It is only from the 7th Century CE on, with slow invasion into some parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, that some of those land became populated by Arabs and Arabic became the spoken language.
> 
> The Indigenous people still speak their indigenous language in many if not ALL of these lands.  They still live there, Arab majority or not.
> 
> The Copts, Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.
Click to expand...


Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records. 

I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.

Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I posted a few times for your education, the Jewish People are formed of ALL the tribes which lived in Ancient Canaan, which you do not seem to know where it is.
> 
> Abraham's family married with the people of Ancient Canaan, so YES, their descendants AND what became the Nation of Israel are
> Indigenous, native of the Land of Canaan, Israel, the Holy Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't know that jew race run by the mother while science said otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something else you do not understand, but you want to make an issue of.
> 
> There is NO Jewish race.
> 
> Jews are an ethnicity.
> 
> Find out what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew are racist.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant and you do not want to learn.

Anything.

You keep wiping the Jews out of existence and you call the Jews racist.

YOU are the one being racist by putting the Arab people on the land when even the Arabs know belonged to the Jews before they invaded it in the 7th Century CE.

All you need to do is read the Muslim Holy Book.  It clear says that when the Muslim Arabs invaded the Holy Land, they met the indigenous Jews there, and opened the city of Jerusalem to them out of respect.


You have no respect for the Jewish people.
You have no respect for the truth, any truth.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  Jewish, as a culture, can't exist because there is only Arab.
> 
> Gee, thanks for erasing an entire culture.  Its especially cool that you erased an entire culture that PRE-EXISTED the Arab culture which you claim is the only "true culture" TM in the area.  Neat trick.  Ugly.  But neat trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well then you should tell me where are all these jews have gone means undercover of 100 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain this sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you said I erased a culture.
> I am asking you then you should tell me where they all disappear if didn't erase them.
Click to expand...

She means that YOU are trying to erase the Jewish people and culture from their ancient homeland.

The Jews did not disappear, they did not go anywhere.  

And like most other people, if they lived away from their homeland, and all people do that, the holy land is still and always will be their ancient homeland for them to return to.  Which is what they always  did, and continue to do to this day.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's holly land?
> 
> Have you heard of this place, btw?
> 
> Invaded by Israel is called holly land and Arab are native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only peace Muslims know from Jews and Christians, is if they are at the Muslim's feet being treated like dogs.
> 
> Which is what happened again and again, during the 1300 years before the recreation of the Nation of Israel .
> 
> Many attacks on Jews.  For any reason.  Many Jewish lives lost.
> For any reason.
> 
> You live in a fantasy of a 900 years of peace which never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not native and you can change the history by making falls propaganda.
Click to expand...


Of course Jews are natives, it's a fact recognized by the international law.
Jews are also the only people who know the meaning of every name of a valley and hill in that land.

Arabs don't even know what the word "Palestine" means.


----------



## fncceo

Rehmani said:


> but you can not find single jew in Iraq.



They can't _*all *_be married!


----------



## Mindful




----------



## rylah

*Before 1948: Eva, Iraq*


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holly land is not your native then how every one will speak hebrew. I am sure the lost village in iraq not every one spoke hebrew either but may  be ancient Persian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how come they all spoke Hebrew in the land?
> There's no meaning in Arabic for the word "Palestine", only in Hebrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me how come? while its Arab land and Arab are Native from there.
> Second there was only a holly land before british and french invaded Holly land for 900 years. But they divided the holly land into four countries so they can accommodate Israel and no one claim holly land and keep Syria out of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs can't even pronounce the first letter in the word "Palestine",
> how did they appear in a land which name they can't even pronounce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are there from ancient time its jew invade their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you telling me that Arabs are not indigenous from the Arabian Peninsula?
> 
> And that at the time of Abraham, Ancient Canaan was already populated by Arabs?
> 
> Which ancient history book did you get this idea from?
Click to expand...

Very simple. They are Arab and long before anyone else.


----------



## Rehmani

fncceo said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the meaning of indigenous?
> I tell you, meaning, have no links to other part of the world, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, NOT the meaning of indigenous.  (Not to mention it defeats your own argument concerning the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do You think that Africa and Spain are also "Arab lands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew are not native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'll find that's entirely not true.
> Regardless, but Arab are native.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rehmani

fncceo said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> they come from may be Gene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure my mum was never that cool...
> I am sure your mother is mother and no one can replace her.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't run long falls propaganda. Just tell me are you native from palestine holly land.
> 1).Do you know the meaning of NATIVE, Indigenous, Ancient?
> 2).You don't want UN because don't have numbers.
> 3).Under Saladin+Ottoman holly land were in peace for 900 years. Israel destroyed that lasting peace.
> 4). Who kicked jew out? Roman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We ARE telling you.  The Jewish people, and ONLY the Jewish people are indigenous to the territory you are labeling the "holy land".  The Jewish people and ONLY the Jewish people are native, indigenous and ancient.
> 
> Arguing that the Jewish people are NOT indigenous is just plain silly and blatantly contrary to known reality.  Now, you COULD make an argument that the Arab Palestinians are ALSO indigenous (its a stretch, but can be done -- Ryan Bellerose does it effectively).  But arguing that the Jewish people are not indigenous is just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask to your teacher he will tell you that if you migrated from some where, you can not be native.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so.....by your logic......since ALL  ARABS   migrated from the Arabian Peninsula to the areas of Iran, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, Ancient Canaan, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Spain, etc.......after the 7th century C. E.........
> 
> Then they are definitely NOT native of any of those places.
> 
> Agree?
Click to expand...

This is apply to jew as they came from Iraq into holly land.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only peace Muslims know from Jews and Christians, is if they are at the Muslim's feet being treated like dogs.
> 
> Which is what happened again and again, during the 1300 years before the recreation of the Nation of Israel .
> 
> Many attacks on Jews.  For any reason.  Many Jewish lives lost.
> For any reason.
> 
> You live in a fantasy of a 900 years of peace which never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not native and you can change the history by making falls propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To you it is false propaganda.  To the real world it is history which actually happened.
> 
> For Real.  To real people.
> 
> And there are documents and history books to prove it.
Click to expand...

It is you, who is trying to change the history while we all know it is always called holly land in Arabic :"Bait-ul-muqadus".


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... if you migrated from some where, you can not be native.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've got it!
> 
> Tell me where did the Jewish people (culture) originate?  Where did the Jewish culture and religion come into being?
Click to expand...

Jew came From an unknown Iraqi village where from Abraham PBUH migrated.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ironically Arabs call themselves invaders when they identify as "Palestinians".
> That's* exactly* what the word means, they would know it if they spoke the native language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This name given by you to holly land to accommodate Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Invading Romans named the Holy land  :
> 
> Syria Palaestina - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> But you do not know that.
> 
> As I said before, they did it to humiliate the JEWS, indigenous of the land, who had been creating revolutions against the Roman conquest of the land.
> 
> They also closed Jerusalem to the Jews, as it was the capital of their Nation.
> 
> But you do not know that.
> 
> 
> The word Philistine means Invaders.
> 
> The word Palestinians means Invaders.
> 
> The word Palestinians comes from the word Philistines, and both mean Invaders.
> 
> 
> There is not letter P in Arabic, so there is no way the Arabs could EVER have named themselves or the region Palestinians or Palestine.
Click to expand...

Look this argument unnecessary. You can't not change the history and Arab are native of holly land.


----------



## fncceo

Rehmani said:


> :"Bait-ul-muqadus"



House of muck?


----------



## Rehmani

Mindful said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do You think that Africa and Spain are also "Arab lands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew are not native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews, being descendants of the Hebrews and Israelites ARE most definitely NATIVE to the Holy Land.  You like it or not.
> 
> And NO, Jews are not from "Europe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whole world knows jew came from Iraq but you can not find single jew in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why's that, do you think?
Click to expand...

where they (jew) have gone from that unknown iraqi village?


----------



## Rehmani

Mindful said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson in geography:
> 
> This is the Arabian Peninsula, and NO, it has not been "invaded" by Israel, and NO it is NOT the Holy Land, and never was.
> 
> But YES, the Arabs ARE indigenous and native of that ancient Arabian Land.
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the 21st Century, yes.
> 
> In the time of Abraham, NO.
> In the time of Moses, NO.
> In the time of King David, NO.
> In the time of the Philistine invasion.  NO.
> In the time of the Greek invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Roman Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Byzantine Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Kurdish Muslim invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Arab Muslim invasion, NO.
> 
> It is only from the 7th Century CE on, with slow invasion into some parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, that some of those land became populated by Arabs and Arabic became the spoken language.
> 
> The Indigenous people still speak their indigenous language in many if not ALL of these lands.  They still live there, Arab majority or not.
> 
> The Copts, Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
Click to expand...

But its not means that you will became native in holly land.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> As I posted a few times for your education, the Jewish People are formed of ALL the tribes which lived in Ancient Canaan, which you do not seem to know where it is.
> 
> Abraham's family married with the people of Ancient Canaan, so YES, their descendants AND what became the Nation of Israel are
> Indigenous, native of the Land of Canaan, Israel, the Holy Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't know that jew race run by the mother while science said otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something else you do not understand, but you want to make an issue of.
> 
> There is NO Jewish race.
> 
> Jews are an ethnicity.
> 
> Find out what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jew are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ignorant and you do not want to learn.
> 
> Anything.
> 
> You keep wiping the Jews out of existence and you call the Jews racist.
> 
> YOU are the one being racist by putting the Arab people on the land when even the Arabs know belonged to the Jews before they invaded it in the 7th Century CE.
> 
> All you need to do is read the Muslim Holy Book.  It clear says that when the Muslim Arabs invaded the Holy Land, they met the indigenous Jews there, and opened the city of Jerusalem to them out of respect.
> 
> 
> You have no respect for the Jewish people.
> You have no respect for the truth, any truth.
Click to expand...

No you are wrong. Jew don't have respect for jews. We believe in more prophets than jew. 
See my signature comments. Israel president calling you (jews) racist.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jew can not be native because Abraham PBUH came from Iraq also a Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  Jewish, as a culture, can't exist because there is only Arab.
> 
> Gee, thanks for erasing an entire culture.  Its especially cool that you erased an entire culture that PRE-EXISTED the Arab culture which you claim is the only "true culture" TM in the area.  Neat trick.  Ugly.  But neat trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well then you should tell me where are all these jews have gone means undercover of 100 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain this sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you said I erased a culture.
> I am asking you then you should tell me where they all disappear if didn't erase them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She means that YOU are trying to erase the Jewish people and culture from their ancient homeland.
> 
> The Jews did not disappear, they did not go anywhere.
> 
> And like most other people, if they lived away from their homeland, and all people do that, the holy land is still and always will be their ancient homeland for them to return to.  Which is what they always  did, and continue to do to this day.
Click to expand...

Again you are wrong. they are disappearing because jew idea that masaya will come, is not working. OR otherwise they are going under cover estimated over 100 million. means living as christian and muslim or hindu or budhist.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only peace Muslims know from Jews and Christians, is if they are at the Muslim's feet being treated like dogs.
> 
> Which is what happened again and again, during the 1300 years before the recreation of the Nation of Israel .
> 
> Many attacks on Jews.  For any reason.  Many Jewish lives lost.
> For any reason.
> 
> You live in a fantasy of a 900 years of peace which never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not native and you can change the history by making falls propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Jews are natives, it's a fact recognized by the international law.
> Jews are also the only people who know the meaning of every name of a valley and hill in that land.
> 
> Arabs don't even know what the word "Palestine" means.
Click to expand...

This called propaganda.


----------



## Rehmani

fncceo said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can not find single jew in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't _*all *_be married!
Click to expand...

may be you are one of them


----------



## fncceo

Rehmani said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can not find single jew in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't _*all *_be married!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> may be you are one of them
Click to expand...


I'm not married ... but, sorry, I'm not looking.  I don't want to tease you.


----------



## Mindful

fncceo said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can not find single jew in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't _*all *_be married!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> may be you are one of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not married ... but, sorry, I'm not looking.  I don't want to tease you.
Click to expand...


lol.


----------



## Rehmani

fncceo said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> :"Bait-ul-muqadus"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House of muck?
Click to expand...

Yours.


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson in geography:
> 
> This is the Arabian Peninsula, and NO, it has not been "invaded" by Israel, and NO it is NOT the Holy Land, and never was.
> 
> But YES, the Arabs ARE indigenous and native of that ancient Arabian Land.
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the 21st Century, yes.
> 
> In the time of Abraham, NO.
> In the time of Moses, NO.
> In the time of King David, NO.
> In the time of the Philistine invasion.  NO.
> In the time of the Greek invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Roman Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Byzantine Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Kurdish Muslim invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Arab Muslim invasion, NO.
> 
> It is only from the 7th Century CE on, with slow invasion into some parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, that some of those land became populated by Arabs and Arabic became the spoken language.
> 
> The Indigenous people still speak their indigenous language in many if not ALL of these lands.  They still live there, Arab majority or not.
> 
> The Copts, Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
Click to expand...


Do you talk like this on purpose?


----------



## Rehmani

fncceo said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you can not find single jew in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't _*all *_be married!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> may be you are one of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not married ... but, sorry, I'm not looking.  I don't want to tease you.
Click to expand...

I agreed.


----------



## Rehmani

Mindful said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq syria jordan lebnon palestine israel all the way to Yamen, Arab peninsula is known Arab land.
> 
> 
> 
> In the 21st Century, yes.
> 
> In the time of Abraham, NO.
> In the time of Moses, NO.
> In the time of King David, NO.
> In the time of the Philistine invasion.  NO.
> In the time of the Greek invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Roman Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Byzantine Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Kurdish Muslim invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Arab Muslim invasion, NO.
> 
> It is only from the 7th Century CE on, with slow invasion into some parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, that some of those land became populated by Arabs and Arabic became the spoken language.
> 
> The Indigenous people still speak their indigenous language in many if not ALL of these lands.  They still live there, Arab majority or not.
> 
> The Copts, Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
Click to expand...

Arab are native and that is all I want.


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 21st Century, yes.
> 
> In the time of Abraham, NO.
> In the time of Moses, NO.
> In the time of King David, NO.
> In the time of the Philistine invasion.  NO.
> In the time of the Greek invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Roman Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Byzantine Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Kurdish Muslim invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Arab Muslim invasion, NO.
> 
> It is only from the 7th Century CE on, with slow invasion into some parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, that some of those land became populated by Arabs and Arabic became the spoken language.
> 
> The Indigenous people still speak their indigenous language in many if not ALL of these lands.  They still live there, Arab majority or not.
> 
> The Copts, Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, etc
> 
> 
> 
> What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
Click to expand...


Go there then


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word_ "Palestine"_ has no meaning in Arabic, only in Hebrew.
> Arabs can't even pronounce the word properly.
> Guess why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only peace Muslims know from Jews and Christians, is if they are at the Muslim's feet being treated like dogs.
> 
> Which is what happened again and again, during the 1300 years before the recreation of the Nation of Israel .
> 
> Many attacks on Jews.  For any reason.  Many Jewish lives lost.
> For any reason.
> 
> You live in a fantasy of a 900 years of peace which never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not native and you can change the history by making falls propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Jews are natives, it's a fact recognized by the international law.
> Jews are also the only people who know the meaning of every name of a valley and hill in that land.
> 
> Arabs don't even know what the word "Palestine" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This called propaganda.
Click to expand...


This is called international law.
Propaganda is what You call facts You can't handle.

However I just think this a great example of the virtues of the average level of Muslim education, they just never gave You any tools to rationally deal with any information or reality,
literally proudly dumb.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 21st Century, yes.
> 
> In the time of Abraham, NO.
> In the time of Moses, NO.
> In the time of King David, NO.
> In the time of the Philistine invasion.  NO.
> In the time of the Greek invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Roman Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Byzantine Invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Kurdish Muslim invasion, NO.
> In the time of the Arab Muslim invasion, NO.
> 
> It is only from the 7th Century CE on, with slow invasion into some parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, that some of those land became populated by Arabs and Arabic became the spoken language.
> 
> The Indigenous people still speak their indigenous language in many if not ALL of these lands.  They still live there, Arab majority or not.
> 
> The Copts, Yazidis, Kurds, Assyrians, etc
> 
> 
> 
> What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
Click to expand...


Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.

And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
because they have meanings only in the native languages.


----------



## Rehmani

Mindful said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go there then
Click to expand...

No I am not here to chase.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because this name given by the invader as I said before invasion it was known holly land for 900 years with peace.
> 
> 
> 
> The only peace Muslims know from Jews and Christians, is if they are at the Muslim's feet being treated like dogs.
> 
> Which is what happened again and again, during the 1300 years before the recreation of the Nation of Israel .
> 
> Many attacks on Jews.  For any reason.  Many Jewish lives lost.
> For any reason.
> 
> You live in a fantasy of a 900 years of peace which never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not native and you can change the history by making falls propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Jews are natives, it's a fact recognized by the international law.
> Jews are also the only people who know the meaning of every name of a valley and hill in that land.
> 
> Arabs don't even know what the word "Palestine" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This called propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is called international law.
> Propaganda is what You call facts You can't handle.
> 
> However I just think this a great example of the virtues of the average level of Muslim education, they just never gave You any tools to rationally deal with any information or reality,
> literally proudly dumb.
Click to expand...

This education give you to propagate lies and earn living on it, how shameful.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ever you said Jew can not be indigenous of holly land but Arab are Indigenous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
Click to expand...

Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be. 
What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
> 
> 
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go there then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not here to chase.
Click to expand...


You're masquerading then?

Some kind of bot?


----------



## fncceo

Mindful said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go there then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not here to chase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're masquerading then?
> 
> Some kind of bot?
Click to expand...


A bot would be a lot more intelligent


----------



## Mindful

fncceo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go there then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not here to chase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're masquerading then?
> 
> Some kind of bot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bot would be a lot more intelligent
Click to expand...


lol.

How would you describe him/her/it?


----------



## fncceo

Mindful said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go there then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not here to chase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're masquerading then?
> 
> Some kind of bot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bot would be a lot more intelligent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> How would you describe him/her/it?
Click to expand...


Just a prosaic idiot, nothing special.


----------



## Rehmani

Israel is not a legitimate country. And no one can allocate some one else to other who is even not native.
Paid agent can not change the facts by spreading lies around.


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> Israel is not a legitimate country. And no one can allocate some one else to other who is even not native.
> Paid agent can not change the facts by spreading lies around.



Bot.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.
> 
> I've visited those digs, and seen it for myself.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think you're a bot.
> 
> 
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
Click to expand...

And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert" 
You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Israel is not a legitimate country. And no one can allocate some one else to other who is even not native.
> Paid agent can not change the facts by spreading lies around.



Habibtaq, for Your information,
it's the Arab media that pays Israeli guests to bring some sense to You people,
the laughing part is for free.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Writing in the Jewish News Service (February 9), Zionist activist and author Lee Bender points out that one-quarter of the Palestinian localities in Israel, Judea and Samaria have ancient biblical names. Among them: Bethlehem (Beit Lechem), Hebron (Chevron), Beitin (Beit El), Jenin (Ein Ganim), Silwan (Shiloach), and Tequa (Tekoa).

Allegations endlessly repeated by the United Nations, Palestinians, and, to be sure, The New York Times, that Israel has no legitimate claim to the territory now commonly known as the “West Bank” (of Jordan) are fallacious, if not mendacious. They lack any familiarity with the history of Jews in the Land of Israel — and the absence of any identifiable “Palestinian” presence or identity until quite recently. But old falsehoods never die; they may not even fade away.

(full article online)

The True History of the Land of Israel


----------



## Sixties Fan

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
Click to expand...

That is a great question.

I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.

Wasn't Arabic their Native language?


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But its not means that you will became native in holly land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
Click to expand...

Are you Jew?


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
Click to expand...

All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
Click to expand...

Why do you not answer questions and only worry if someone is Jewish or not?

Were the Arabs living in Ancient Canaan 4000 years ago speaking Arabic or not?

If they were speaking Arabic, did they write the original Holy Book in Arabic?


----------



## Mindful

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
Click to expand...


Such a conundrum for you?

Must keep you awake at nights.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you talk like this on purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you Jew?
Click to expand...


Aiwa ayouni ya habibtaq,
Will You tell us how it gives You sleepless nights?


----------



## Sixties Fan

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aiwa ayouni ya habibtaq,
> Will You tell us how it gives You sleepless nights?
Click to expand...

Does he speak Arabic, or his native language....Urdu or Hindustani (Pakistan)
Rehmani is a Pakistani name.  Pakistan was cut off from India.
India continues to be a country with a peaceful ancient religion.
Pakistan became Muslim and it is not a peaceful religion, or country.

Amazing how changing religions turns the next generations into something they would never have become under their original ancient religion.

Mainly, as well as in Malaysia and Indonesia, generations now, are haters of Jews for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Mindful

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you not answer questions and only worry if someone is Jewish or not?
> 
> Were the Arabs living in Ancient Canaan 4000 years ago speaking Arabic or not?
> 
> If they were speaking Arabic, did they write the original Holy Book in Arabic?
Click to expand...


He's probably some banjo playing twit living on the arse end of nowhere in the Appalachians.

Or some undergraduate posing as a tosser, trying to  be clever.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
Click to expand...


Actually it already did, the land rejected the Arab invaders and gave the best of her fruits to her true children. Pay attention, it doesn't matter what You think, it matters what we do.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Mindful said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you not answer questions and only worry if someone is Jewish or not?
> 
> Were the Arabs living in Ancient Canaan 4000 years ago speaking Arabic or not?
> 
> If they were speaking Arabic, did they write the original Holy Book in Arabic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's probably some banjo playing twit living on the arse end of nowhere in the Appalachians.
> 
> Or some undergraduate posing as a tosser, trying to  be clever.
Click to expand...

I really don't think so.  But it does not matter.  The Muslim toxic teaching against the Jewish People is the same to many of those who become Muslims.


----------



## Mindful

Sixties Fan said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you not answer questions and only worry if someone is Jewish or not?
> 
> Were the Arabs living in Ancient Canaan 4000 years ago speaking Arabic or not?
> 
> If they were speaking Arabic, did they write the original Holy Book in Arabic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's probably some banjo playing twit living on the arse end of nowhere in the Appalachians.
> 
> Or some undergraduate posing as a tosser, trying to  be clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really don't think so.  But it does not matter.  The Muslim toxic teaching against the Jewish People is the same to many of those who become Muslims.
Click to expand...


You really think he's a Muslim?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers: Life as a dhimmi in pre-state Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Walid Khalidi: The reconquista of Mandatory Palestine under British aegis*

**


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Walid Khalidi: The reconquista of Mandatory Palestine under British aegis*



You can waste the next 10 years of your miserable life whining about the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate, whining about the failures of Arabs-Moslems, whining about muhammud's broken promise that Arabs and gee-had would rule over the kuffar and you can re-write history as you wish.

Never mind that Islam's odious religious leaders and heroes to the vacant minded wannabes aren't teaching their young charges about respect and tolerance, or building prosperous and peaceful societies where most people are literate and healthy—Allah wants you to hate yourselves with the same zeal that you hate the kuffar. He wants you to kill them. Yes, it's sort of a roundabout way for a 7th century Arab warlord to coerce the fearful and superstitious, but it is not your place to question happy-fun islamo-hatred.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arab are native and that is all I want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aiwa ayouni ya habibtaq,
> Will You tell us how it gives You sleepless nights?
Click to expand...

Why I am asking this question because as there are paid agent and quite possible there is no jew at all.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Walid Khalidi: The reconquista of Mandatory Palestine under British aegis*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can waste the next 10 years of your miserable life whining about the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate, whining about the failures of Arabs-Moslems, whining about muhammud's broken promise that Arabs and gee-had would rule over the kuffar and you can re-write history as you wish.
> 
> Never mind that Islam's odious religious leaders and heroes to the vacant minded wannabes aren't teaching their young charges about respect and tolerance, or building prosperous and peaceful societies where most people are literate and healthy—Allah wants you to hate yourselves with the same zeal that you hate the kuffar. He wants you to kill them. Yes, it's sort of a roundabout way for a 7th century Arab warlord to coerce the fearful and superstitious, but it is not your place to question happy-fun islamo-hatred.
Click to expand...

Nice rant!


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Arabs are native to Arabia You poor hmar,
> anywhere else they're as much "natives" as the average US citizen of Milwaukee.
> 
> And as much as 'Milwaukee' in English,
> 'Palestine' in Arabic has no meaning,
> because they have meanings only in the native languages.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it already did, the land rejected the Arab invaders and gave the best of her fruits to her true children. Pay attention, it doesn't matter what You think, it matters what we do.
Click to expand...

You wished.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Mandatory Palestine: The Palestinians before the British Mandate*

**


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Mandatory Palestine: The Palestinians before the British Mandate*



Before the British mandate, Arabs-Moslems occupying the land area known as Palestine were Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese and remnants of those from the Ottoman caliphate.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Walid Khalidi: The reconquista of Mandatory Palestine under British aegis*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can waste the next 10 years of your miserable life whining about the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate, whining about the failures of Arabs-Moslems, whining about muhammud's broken promise that Arabs and gee-had would rule over the kuffar and you can re-write history as you wish.
> 
> Never mind that Islam's odious religious leaders and heroes to the vacant minded wannabes aren't teaching their young charges about respect and tolerance, or building prosperous and peaceful societies where most people are literate and healthy—Allah wants you to hate yourselves with the same zeal that you hate the kuffar. He wants you to kill them. Yes, it's sort of a roundabout way for a 7th century Arab warlord to coerce the fearful and superstitious, but it is not your place to question happy-fun islamo-hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant!
Click to expand...


Without a YouTube video too cut and paste, you’re just wasting bandwidth.


----------



## theHawk

It’s always quite comical how people endlessly debate whether or not Israel has the right to exist or debate how it chooses to bestow citizenship.

I’m certainly not one of those people that believes America’s fate hinges on the existence of Israel.  We existed just fine long before Israel with Jews existed.  For the most part I could care less about Israel and how they conduct their own affairs.

That being said, the only rule about how and why countries get to exist is simply the fact that a group of people have the will to hold onto their land from outside invaders.  If they fail, they fall and are replaced one way or another.  Every nation was founded by violence.  Israel has every “right” to exist as long as they have the ability to defend their nation.  Muslims in the West Bank can whine and bitch and moan all they want, but the reality is they are too weak to oust the Jews.

If Muslims want the land, man the fuck up and take it back.  Of course they tried this, and got their asses kicked.  I do hope the Jews remain victorious over the Muslims, simply because we all know first hand how savage and barbaric Islam is.  Islam is a scourge upon this world and should be eradicated.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you accept that jew are not from holly land. They are migrated from Iraq. If you think that you have prime mind then whole world know who can be native and can not be.
> What useless mind you have because as you are paid propagandist and it is your earning/living.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it already did, the land rejected the Arab invaders and gave the best of her fruits to her true children. Pay attention, it doesn't matter what You think, it matters what we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wished.
Click to expand...

You're correct, we wished for 2000 years.
Was worth it I must say.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Arabs themselves call it the "Jewish Desert"
> You know from whom everyone learned it was holy land?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it already did, the land rejected the Arab invaders and gave the best of her fruits to her true children. Pay attention, it doesn't matter what You think, it matters what we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're correct, we wished for 2000 years.
> Was worth it I must say.
Click to expand...

The sooner jew not you mean jew will understand is better. The jew idea is flop. May be it is working for jew but not for the mankind. Why it is flop because masaya is not coming any more 3000 years passed. It is not making any sense either wait for 4000 years. Jew should followed my signature comments instead.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a great question.
> 
> I would be interested in finding out how come, it being the Arabs who lived in Ancient Canaan 3000-4000 years ago, how come....
> the Torah, the original first Holy Book......was not written in Arabic by those indigenous, native population.  Or the poems by King David.
> 
> Wasn't Arabic their Native language?
> 
> 
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it already did, the land rejected the Arab invaders and gave the best of her fruits to her true children. Pay attention, it doesn't matter what You think, it matters what we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're correct, we wished for 2000 years.
> Was worth it I must say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sooner jew not you mean jew will understand is better. The jew idea is flop. May be it is working for jew but not for the mankind. Why it is flop because masaya is not coming any more 3000 years passed. It is not making any sense either wait for 4000 years. Jew should followed my signature comments instead.
Click to expand...

Now, now, now......
Why in the world would we follow your signature or anything else you post since you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

You do not know if it is 4000 yeas, 3000 years or 2000 years.  1000 years, 500 years or 200 years.

You do not know anything, only what .....somehow.....has ended in your mind.

You do not know what a Jewish Prophet or Messiah is.

And we, the Jewish People, are going to follow a false Prophet, Messiah or Leader like you?

From where I stand, the Jewish idea or reclaiming any part of our ancestral land, which was finally achieved in 1948.....after too much blood (caused by the invading Arabs) , sweat and tears ( by the Indigenous Native Jews )  has been a TREMENDOUS    Success .

The Jewish Messiah has come.  (It has nothing to do with your Christian idea of what a Messiah is.    That one is a totally false, phony one invented by an ex Jew.  For fools like him. )


So, my Pakistani Muslim friend, you can rest your head at night and realize that all is well with the world because the Jewish People once again are Masters of their own destiny and doing a wonderful job of it.

Now, if only you can teach your Muslim friends to abandon all the ugly things written in the Quran and other writings and simply treat ALL humans like humans and not like different animals at their mercy......

Then we shall have a much peaceful world.

Just take a good look at all the wars Muslims are involved in right now.
And all the hatred and murder they are causing, on a daily basis, around the world.

Islam is a "religion" of hatred and conquest.
Christianity is a "religion" of hatred and conquest.

Judaism is a religion of love, respect and responsibility for one's act.

We shall continue to choose the original religion which has already taught much of the world that teaching one's fellow person like a monkey, pig or dog, is not what the higher spirit put us on this planet for.

Something that You have not bothered to learn, yet, since you come here on an almost daily basis to insist that we should be subservient to your words and your wishes as to what the Jews should be doing, what the Jews should become. (Your servants, your slaves, as they used to be, as they were for way too long )

An imitation of you and all of your failures. And the endless failures of Christianity and Islam for the past 1700 years.  The failure to turn all Jews into your forever servants.

No thank you .
No thanks, Christianity.
No thanks, Islam.

Now, do with your life what you will.

There isn't one Jew here or anywhere else in the world who actually is an idiot, as you wish them to be, and is ever going to follow your endlessly useless, "I am your Master and you must follow me" words .

Shalom (Peace)

Am Israel Chai
(Means =  The People of Israel Live)

And we shall continue to LIVE, regardless of any efforts by all the fools in the world who wish the contrary.

After all the brutality and murder on our people, by Christians and Muslims for the past 1700 years, we still live, we are still here and will continue to LIVE.

Shalom ( Goodbye)


----------



## Sixties Fan

This is one of the consequences of the rebirth of Israel that is often forgotten now. Before 1948, especially during the Holocaust, there was a lot of Christian opinion that the Jews' suffering is a fulfillment of their destiny for rejecting Jesus. That was the opinion of mainstream Christianity for centuries in Europe. The founding of the modern State of Israel was an actual crisis for Protestants in America because it simply didn't fit in with their absolute knowledge that Jews deserved to be suffering.

However, in 1834, it was axiomatic that Muslims mistreated and despised Jews.

(full article online)

Jew hatred in Jerusalem, 1834 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this argument, won't make jew native. will it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it already did, the land rejected the Arab invaders and gave the best of her fruits to her true children. Pay attention, it doesn't matter what You think, it matters what we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're correct, we wished for 2000 years.
> Was worth it I must say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sooner jew not you mean jew will understand is better. The jew idea is flop. May be it is working for jew but not for the mankind. Why it is flop because masaya is not coming any more 3000 years passed. It is not making any sense either wait for 4000 years. Jew should followed my signature comments instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, now, now......
> Why in the world would we follow your signature or anything else you post since you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> You do not know if it is 4000 yeas, 3000 years or 2000 years.  1000 years, 500 years or 200 years.
> 
> You do not know anything, only what .....somehow.....has ended in your mind.
> 
> You do not know what a Jewish Prophet or Messiah is.
> 
> And we, the Jewish People, are going to follow a false Prophet, Messiah or Leader like you?
> 
> From where I stand, the Jewish idea or reclaiming any part of our ancestral land, which was finally achieved in 1948.....after too much blood (caused by the invading Arabs) , sweat and tears ( by the Indigenous Native Jews )  has been a TREMENDOUS    Success .
> 
> The Jewish Messiah has come.  (It has nothing to do with your Christian idea of what a Messiah is.    That one is a totally false, phony one invented by an ex Jew.  For fools like him. )
> 
> 
> So, my Pakistani Muslim friend, you can rest your head at night and realize that all is well with the world because the Jewish People once again are Masters of their own destiny and doing a wonderful job of it.
> 
> Now, if only you can teach your Muslim friends to abandon all the ugly things written in the Quran and other writings and simply treat ALL humans like humans and not like different animals at their mercy......
> 
> Then we shall have a much peaceful world.
> 
> Just take a good look at all the wars Muslims are involved in right now.
> And all the hatred and murder they are causing, on a daily basis, around the world.
> 
> Islam is a "religion" of hatred and conquest.
> Christianity is a "religion" of hatred and conquest.
> 
> Judaism is a religion of love, respect and responsibility for one's act.
> 
> We shall continue to choose the original religion which has already taught much of the world that teaching one's fellow person like a monkey, pig or dog, is not what the higher spirit put us on this planet for.
> 
> Something that You have not bothered to learn, yet, since you come here on an almost daily basis to insist that we should be subservient to your words and your wishes as to what the Jews should be doing, what the Jews should become. (Your servants, your slaves, as they used to be, as they were for way too long )
> 
> An imitation of you and all of your failures. And the endless failures of Christianity and Islam for the past 1700 years.  The failure to turn all Jews into your forever servants.
> 
> No thank you .
> No thanks, Christianity.
> No thanks, Islam.
> 
> Now, do with your life what you will.
> 
> There isn't one Jew here or anywhere else in the world who actually is an idiot, as you wish them to be, and is ever going to follow your endlessly useless, "I am your Master and you must follow me" words .
> 
> Shalom (Peace)
> 
> Am Israel Chai
> (Means =  The People of Israel Live)
> 
> And we shall continue to LIVE, regardless of any efforts by all the fools in the world who wish the contrary.
> 
> After all the brutality and murder on our people, by Christians and Muslims for the past 1700 years, we still live, we are still here and will continue to LIVE.
> 
> Shalom ( Goodbye)
Click to expand...

If Masaya is not coming 3000 years then to whom you will follow? Are Jew g-d or God Is God? Or Prophet is  prophet? 
Whenever Prophet come to tell to jew that I am prophet and 8 of them but jew tell the Prophet that you are not prophet.
Please tell me that Prophet should follow you? as you already rejected 8 Prophets.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it already did, the land rejected the Arab invaders and gave the best of her fruits to her true children. Pay attention, it doesn't matter what You think, it matters what we do.
> 
> 
> 
> You wished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're correct, we wished for 2000 years.
> Was worth it I must say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sooner jew not you mean jew will understand is better. The jew idea is flop. May be it is working for jew but not for the mankind. Why it is flop because masaya is not coming any more 3000 years passed. It is not making any sense either wait for 4000 years. Jew should followed my signature comments instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, now, now......
> Why in the world would we follow your signature or anything else you post since you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> You do not know if it is 4000 yeas, 3000 years or 2000 years.  1000 years, 500 years or 200 years.
> 
> You do not know anything, only what .....somehow.....has ended in your mind.
> 
> You do not know what a Jewish Prophet or Messiah is.
> 
> And we, the Jewish People, are going to follow a false Prophet, Messiah or Leader like you?
> 
> From where I stand, the Jewish idea or reclaiming any part of our ancestral land, which was finally achieved in 1948.....after too much blood (caused by the invading Arabs) , sweat and tears ( by the Indigenous Native Jews )  has been a TREMENDOUS    Success .
> 
> The Jewish Messiah has come.  (It has nothing to do with your Christian idea of what a Messiah is.    That one is a totally false, phony one invented by an ex Jew.  For fools like him. )
> 
> 
> So, my Pakistani Muslim friend, you can rest your head at night and realize that all is well with the world because the Jewish People once again are Masters of their own destiny and doing a wonderful job of it.
> 
> Now, if only you can teach your Muslim friends to abandon all the ugly things written in the Quran and other writings and simply treat ALL humans like humans and not like different animals at their mercy......
> 
> Then we shall have a much peaceful world.
> 
> Just take a good look at all the wars Muslims are involved in right now.
> And all the hatred and murder they are causing, on a daily basis, around the world.
> 
> Islam is a "religion" of hatred and conquest.
> Christianity is a "religion" of hatred and conquest.
> 
> Judaism is a religion of love, respect and responsibility for one's act.
> 
> We shall continue to choose the original religion which has already taught much of the world that teaching one's fellow person like a monkey, pig or dog, is not what the higher spirit put us on this planet for.
> 
> Something that You have not bothered to learn, yet, since you come here on an almost daily basis to insist that we should be subservient to your words and your wishes as to what the Jews should be doing, what the Jews should become. (Your servants, your slaves, as they used to be, as they were for way too long )
> 
> An imitation of you and all of your failures. And the endless failures of Christianity and Islam for the past 1700 years.  The failure to turn all Jews into your forever servants.
> 
> No thank you .
> No thanks, Christianity.
> No thanks, Islam.
> 
> Now, do with your life what you will.
> 
> There isn't one Jew here or anywhere else in the world who actually is an idiot, as you wish them to be, and is ever going to follow your endlessly useless, "I am your Master and you must follow me" words .
> 
> Shalom (Peace)
> 
> Am Israel Chai
> (Means =  The People of Israel Live)
> 
> And we shall continue to LIVE, regardless of any efforts by all the fools in the world who wish the contrary.
> 
> After all the brutality and murder on our people, by Christians and Muslims for the past 1700 years, we still live, we are still here and will continue to LIVE.
> 
> Shalom ( Goodbye)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Masaya is not coming 3000 years then to whom you will follow? Are Jew g-d or God Is God? Or Prophet is  prophet?
> Whenever Prophet come to tell to jew that I am prophet and 8 of them but jew tell the Prophet that you are not prophet.
> Please tell me that Prophet should follow you? as you already rejected 8 Prophets.
Click to expand...

Sad Rehmani,

You are rambling like a dog who lost its bone.

Go in search as to why Pakistan is now Muslim and the Pakistani ancestors are crying saying "Why have you abandoned India and our gods? Krishna is crying.   The ancient gods of Malaysia and Indonesia are crying.
The ancient gods of Africa are crying.

Even the ancient gods of Arabia are crying for having abandoned them for such a murderous god such as the one you have chosen to follow.

Continue to mumble Islamic nonsense in search of being the Master of others, when you are never going to be your own master, because Islam is now your Master.

This time it is goodbye for good.

Rumble, Mumble, suffer as Islam wants you to suffer.

We, the Jewish people are our own people, always have been and always will be, and your violent, disrespectful, disgusting "religion" is never, ever, going to change that.


Just remember this:

*Am Israel Chai

The People of Israel Live*


Namaste


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wished.
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct, we wished for 2000 years.
> Was worth it I must say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sooner jew not you mean jew will understand is better. The jew idea is flop. May be it is working for jew but not for the mankind. Why it is flop because masaya is not coming any more 3000 years passed. It is not making any sense either wait for 4000 years. Jew should followed my signature comments instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, now, now......
> Why in the world would we follow your signature or anything else you post since you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> You do not know if it is 4000 yeas, 3000 years or 2000 years.  1000 years, 500 years or 200 years.
> 
> You do not know anything, only what .....somehow.....has ended in your mind.
> 
> You do not know what a Jewish Prophet or Messiah is.
> 
> And we, the Jewish People, are going to follow a false Prophet, Messiah or Leader like you?
> 
> From where I stand, the Jewish idea or reclaiming any part of our ancestral land, which was finally achieved in 1948.....after too much blood (caused by the invading Arabs) , sweat and tears ( by the Indigenous Native Jews )  has been a TREMENDOUS    Success .
> 
> The Jewish Messiah has come.  (It has nothing to do with your Christian idea of what a Messiah is.    That one is a totally false, phony one invented by an ex Jew.  For fools like him. )
> 
> 
> So, my Pakistani Muslim friend, you can rest your head at night and realize that all is well with the world because the Jewish People once again are Masters of their own destiny and doing a wonderful job of it.
> 
> Now, if only you can teach your Muslim friends to abandon all the ugly things written in the Quran and other writings and simply treat ALL humans like humans and not like different animals at their mercy......
> 
> Then we shall have a much peaceful world.
> 
> Just take a good look at all the wars Muslims are involved in right now.
> And all the hatred and murder they are causing, on a daily basis, around the world.
> 
> Islam is a "religion" of hatred and conquest.
> Christianity is a "religion" of hatred and conquest.
> 
> Judaism is a religion of love, respect and responsibility for one's act.
> 
> We shall continue to choose the original religion which has already taught much of the world that teaching one's fellow person like a monkey, pig or dog, is not what the higher spirit put us on this planet for.
> 
> Something that You have not bothered to learn, yet, since you come here on an almost daily basis to insist that we should be subservient to your words and your wishes as to what the Jews should be doing, what the Jews should become. (Your servants, your slaves, as they used to be, as they were for way too long )
> 
> An imitation of you and all of your failures. And the endless failures of Christianity and Islam for the past 1700 years.  The failure to turn all Jews into your forever servants.
> 
> No thank you .
> No thanks, Christianity.
> No thanks, Islam.
> 
> Now, do with your life what you will.
> 
> There isn't one Jew here or anywhere else in the world who actually is an idiot, as you wish them to be, and is ever going to follow your endlessly useless, "I am your Master and you must follow me" words .
> 
> Shalom (Peace)
> 
> Am Israel Chai
> (Means =  The People of Israel Live)
> 
> And we shall continue to LIVE, regardless of any efforts by all the fools in the world who wish the contrary.
> 
> After all the brutality and murder on our people, by Christians and Muslims for the past 1700 years, we still live, we are still here and will continue to LIVE.
> 
> Shalom ( Goodbye)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Masaya is not coming 3000 years then to whom you will follow? Are Jew g-d or God Is God? Or Prophet is  prophet?
> Whenever Prophet come to tell to jew that I am prophet and 8 of them but jew tell the Prophet that you are not prophet.
> Please tell me that Prophet should follow you? as you already rejected 8 Prophets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sad Rehmani,
> 
> You are rambling like a dog who lost its bone.
> 
> Go in search as to why Pakistan is now Muslim and the Pakistani ancestors are crying saying "Why have you abandoned India and our gods? Krishna is crying.   The ancient gods of Malaysia and Indonesia are crying.
> The ancient gods of Africa are crying.
> 
> Even the ancient gods of Arabia are crying for having abandoned them for such a murderous god such as the one you have chosen to follow.
> 
> Continue to mumble Islamic nonsense in search of being the Master of others, when you are never going to be your own master, because Islam is now your Master.
> 
> This time it is goodbye for good.
> 
> Rumble, Mumble, suffer as Islam wants you to suffer.
> 
> We, the Jewish people are our own people, always have been and always will be, and your violent, disrespectful, disgusting "religion" is never, ever, going to change that.
> 
> 
> Just remember this:
> 
> *Am Israel Chai
> 
> The People of Israel Live*
> 
> 
> Namaste
Click to expand...

When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship.


----------



## Shusha

Oh you ARE confused.  Seriously?!  You can't tell the difference between WHERE people pray and G-d they are are praying to?!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> Oh you ARE confused.  Seriously?!  You can't tell the difference between WHERE people pray and G-d they are are praying to?!


Leave the creature to himself.  He is a here to delegitimize Jews and Judaism.
As I said before, he belongs in the religion communities with his "religious beliefs".

Let us move on from him, shall we all?


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Oh you ARE confused.  Seriously?!  You can't tell the difference between WHERE people pray and G-d they are are praying to?!



Whole world will tell same thing.
Means you can not tell to prophet that you are not prophet. Because You are not God and g-d is good for you.
That is why I am saying jew idea is flop.

 "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you ARE confused.  Seriously?!  You can't tell the difference between WHERE people pray and G-d they are are praying to?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole world will tell same thing.
> Means you can not tell to prophet that you are not prophet. Because You are not God and g-d is good for you.
> That is why I am saying jew idea is flop.
> 
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
Click to expand...


Is this what Your mufti tells You in Friday sermons?
I'm pretty sure he knows little about Islam let alone Judaism.
After 2000 of Christianity and 1400 years of Islam trying to force Jews to abandon their traditions, the result is a great failure against all odds. The only certain thing to say for sure is that Hashem fulfills His promises,
Israel is there to attest to that.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you ARE confused.  Seriously?!  You can't tell the difference between WHERE people pray and G-d they are are praying to?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole world will tell same thing.
> Means you can not tell to prophet that you are not prophet. Because You are not God and g-d is good for you.
> That is why I am saying jew idea is flop.
> 
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this what Your mufti tells You in Friday sermons?
> I'm pretty sure he knows little about Islam let alone Judaism.
> After 2000 of Christianity and 1400 years of Islam trying to force Jews to abandon their traditions, the result is a great failure against all odds. The only certain thing to say for sure is that Hashem fulfills His promises,
> Israel is there to attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I am saying jew don't know where they are coming from and where they are going to means confused.
> fro example, jew don't know that they are not native from holly land and they are also don't know where they came from, a little unknown village in IRAQ. They are also don't know that you can not tell to Prophet that you are not prophet because jew are not God but may be jew are g-d. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall can not be worshiped because this WALL built to hold hill and House Of Allah on it. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall is not a God and only God can be worshiped but Jew don't beleave in God because they are g-d......more. Means Jew idea is flop.
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
Click to expand...

Start your own little thread about " Jews are confused " in the religion community.

Your ranting does not belong in this thread or this community at all.

Do it.   Because the next time you post here, I may just report you and you may just be banned from posting on this thread.  The same way many like you have been to this day.  Because you do not know the meaning of respecting where you are, and what the threads are about.

Understand?

Whether you post here again, or start your own thread in the right community will be the answer as to how much you understand the word *respect.*


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you ARE confused.  Seriously?!  You can't tell the difference between WHERE people pray and G-d they are are praying to?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole world will tell same thing.
> Means you can not tell to prophet that you are not prophet. Because You are not God and g-d is good for you.
> That is why I am saying jew idea is flop.
> 
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this what Your mufti tells You in Friday sermons?
> I'm pretty sure he knows little about Islam let alone Judaism.
> After 2000 of Christianity and 1400 years of Islam trying to force Jews to abandon their traditions, the result is a great failure against all odds. The only certain thing to say for sure is that Hashem fulfills His promises,
> Israel is there to attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I am saying jew don't know where they are coming from and where they are going to means confused.
> fro example, jew don't know that they are not native from holly land and they are also don't know where they came from, a little unknown village in IRAQ. They are also don't know that you can not tell to Prophet that you are not prophet because jew are not God but may be jew are g-d. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall can not be worshiped because this WALL built to hold hill and House Of Allah on it. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall is not a God and only God can be worshiped but Jew don't beleave in God because they are g-d......more. Means Jew idea is flop.
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start your own little thread about " Jews are confused " in the religion community.
> 
> Your ranting does not belong in this thread or this community at all.
> 
> Do it.   Because the next time you post here, I may just report you and you may just be banned from posting on this thread.  The same way many like you have been to this day.  Because you do not know the meaning of respecting where you are, and what the threads are about.
> 
> Understand?
> 
> Whether you post here again, or start your own thread in the right community will be the answer as to how much you understand the word *respect.*
Click to expand...

Its you and your people change the track, when you jew can not handle debate. Not blame to me.
Its me who remind you last time that lets go back to topic. Did you remember?
Lets go back the topic. Israel is not legitimate country, jew are invader.


----------



## abu afak

Rehmani said:


> *Jew also don't know that a retaining wall can not be worshiped because this WALL built to hold hill and House Of Allah on it.*



*The Wall has been archaeogically dated to 200 BC.
About 800-900 Years BEFORE ARAB MUSLIMS INVADED JUDEA/Jerusalem and built a Mosque on TOP of the Foundation of the Jewish Second Temple.
Arabs are native to ARABIA, the ARABian Peninsula.

Ergo, Mohammed did NOT ascend to Heaven from al aqsa. He died 50-60 years before it was built.
The inclusion of al aqsa as a Muslim Holy place is BS Revisionism.
The usual Muslim Taqiyyah.*




			
				Rehmani said:
			
		

> * Jew also don't know that a retaining wall is not a God and only God can be worshiped but Jew don't beleave in God because they are g-d......more. Means Jew idea is flop.*


*So Muslims Can't worship the Kabah (Moon God) either.

The whole Muslim religion is based on a piecemeal reconstruction of many scribes recording sayings of illiterate MoHAMmed.
Most of it was lost.
Much changed
The earliest Korans are 'Palimpsests'. New text written over old.

The Koran is incoherent and contradictory, and not in chronological order.
It is arranged by Chapter size! 
As if by an Illiterate who didn't know what the text said. 
*

Your posts are a joke and you don't even know Your religion much less Judaism.


`


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you ARE confused.  Seriously?!  You can't tell the difference between WHERE people pray and G-d they are are praying to?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whole world will tell same thing.
> Means you can not tell to prophet that you are not prophet. Because You are not God and g-d is good for you.
> That is why I am saying jew idea is flop.
> 
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this what Your mufti tells You in Friday sermons?
> I'm pretty sure he knows little about Islam let alone Judaism.
> After 2000 of Christianity and 1400 years of Islam trying to force Jews to abandon their traditions, the result is a great failure against all odds. The only certain thing to say for sure is that Hashem fulfills His promises,
> Israel is there to attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I am saying jew don't know where they are coming from and where they are going to means confused.
> fro example, jew don't know that they are not native from holly land and they are also don't know where they came from, a little unknown village in IRAQ. They are also don't know that you can not tell to Prophet that you are not prophet because jew are not God but may be jew are g-d. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall can not be worshiped because this WALL built to hold hill and House Of Allah on it. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall is not a God and only God can be worshiped but Jew don't beleave in God because they are g-d......more. Means Jew idea is flop.
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start your own little thread about " Jews are confused " in the religion community.
> 
> Your ranting does not belong in this thread or this community at all.
> 
> Do it.   Because the next time you post here, I may just report you and you may just be banned from posting on this thread.  The same way many like you have been to this day.  Because you do not know the meaning of respecting where you are, and what the threads are about.
> 
> Understand?
> 
> Whether you post here again, or start your own thread in the right community will be the answer as to how much you understand the word *respect.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its you and your people change the track, when you jew can not handle debate. Not blame to me.
> Its me who remind you last time that lets go back to topic. Did you remember?
> Lets go back the topic. Israel is not legitimate country, jew are invader.
Click to expand...

This is how you handle debates about the creation of Israel:

3335




*RehmaniVIP Member*

Israel is not a legitimate country. And no one can allocate some one else to other who is even not native.
Paid agent can not change the facts by spreading lies around.

----------------
This is your allegation.  Based on every lie told by Christian and Muslim extremists who want to see Israel destroyed because it is a Jewish Country, and those extremists cannot stand that Jews would have any freedom to be sovereign of their own destiny ever again.

This is who you are.  This is your belief.  From those beliefs.

You do not have one shred of evidence and never will, that the Jews who recreated their Nation ON THEIR ANCIENT homeland, are not descendants of the ancient Israelites.  Never will.  Why?  Because it does not exist.

As I posted here before, you are very clear as to what you have come here, and on the religious threads to do:

DELEGITIMIZE   the Jewish people, the Jewish Nation, the Jewish History, the Jewish culture, for the supremacist ideology you now represent.  Be it Christianity, be it Islam, THEY  invented the lies which lead to the hatred of all Jews.

That is what Jews have had to deal with for the past 2000 years from two false ideologies, which insist that THEY are not only superior but have come to take Judaism's place.

Replacement ideologies, became replacement of religion, history, culture, everything .........unless the Jews agree to go back to being second class citizens and be allowed to be treated worse than they treat dogs.

There is no one who can make you understand that what you are saying is nothing more than learned superiority over the Jews.

We do not care for your superiority.  We care to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our country, our religion, our history, and our culture from people who, like you, are more than intent in destroying it.


Israel IS a legitimate country.  It got permission from many countries to be recreated, ONLY because the Jews ARE the indigenous people of the land.

The New Testament attests to that.

The Quran attests to that.

But you want to change, not only the whole history of the Jewish people, you want to change all that is written in those books, and in every history book, or any book which is proof that the Jews are the indigenous people of the holy land, and that all they did with the Mandate for Palestine, was to reclaim their ancient homeland.


You have shown NO PROOF at all that the Jewish people who recreated Israel are "invaders".

And you cannot show any proof that the Arabs have been indigenous to Ancient Canaan for the past 10,000, much less for the past 4000 years, or even 1000 years.


The proof is with us.  And we shall fight your lies, no matter how much you believe in them , with the truth every time.

And every time we shall WIN.

This is our history:

History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel - Wikipedia

Always has been and always will be.
 It is not the history of Arabs who were forced to abandon their gods in the 7th Century CE under the sword of Mohammad and his army to convert to Islam while they were ALL living in Arabia.

Find the Arabs in the Land of Israel before the 7th Century CE in this video:



Am Israel CHAI.

The People of Israel LIVE.


(Now, go back to the religious community, and please stay there.   There is nothing for you here.  There are no fools for you to turn your mission into a success.   Lies never win.  Ever)


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whole world will tell same thing.
> Means you can not tell to prophet that you are not prophet. Because You are not God and g-d is good for you.
> That is why I am saying jew idea is flop.
> 
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what Your mufti tells You in Friday sermons?
> I'm pretty sure he knows little about Islam let alone Judaism.
> After 2000 of Christianity and 1400 years of Islam trying to force Jews to abandon their traditions, the result is a great failure against all odds. The only certain thing to say for sure is that Hashem fulfills His promises,
> Israel is there to attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I am saying jew don't know where they are coming from and where they are going to means confused.
> fro example, jew don't know that they are not native from holly land and they are also don't know where they came from, a little unknown village in IRAQ. They are also don't know that you can not tell to Prophet that you are not prophet because jew are not God but may be jew are g-d. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall can not be worshiped because this WALL built to hold hill and House Of Allah on it. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall is not a God and only God can be worshiped but Jew don't beleave in God because they are g-d......more. Means Jew idea is flop.
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start your own little thread about " Jews are confused " in the religion community.
> 
> Your ranting does not belong in this thread or this community at all.
> 
> Do it.   Because the next time you post here, I may just report you and you may just be banned from posting on this thread.  The same way many like you have been to this day.  Because you do not know the meaning of respecting where you are, and what the threads are about.
> 
> Understand?
> 
> Whether you post here again, or start your own thread in the right community will be the answer as to how much you understand the word *respect.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its you and your people change the track, when you jew can not handle debate. Not blame to me.
> Its me who remind you last time that lets go back to topic. Did you remember?
> Lets go back the topic. Israel is not legitimate country, jew are invader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is how you handle debates about the creation of Israel:
> 
> 3335
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *RehmaniVIP Member*
> 
> Israel is not a legitimate country. And no one can allocate some one else to other who is even not native.
> Paid agent can not change the facts by spreading lies around.
> 
> ----------------
> This is your allegation.  Based on every lie told by Christian and Muslim extremists who want to see Israel destroyed because it is a Jewish Country, and those extremists cannot stand that Jews would have any freedom to be sovereign of their own destiny ever again.
> 
> This is who you are.  This is your belief.  From those beliefs.
> 
> You do not have one shred of evidence and never will, that the Jews who recreated their Nation ON THEIR ANCIENT homeland, are not descendants of the ancient Israelites.  Never will.  Why?  Because it does not exist.
> 
> As I posted here before, you are very clear as to what you have come here, and on the religious threads to do:
> 
> DELEGITIMIZE   the Jewish people, the Jewish Nation, the Jewish History, the Jewish culture, for the supremacist ideology you now represent.  Be it Christianity, be it Islam, THEY  invented the lies which lead to the hatred of all Jews.
> 
> That is what Jews have had to deal with for the past 2000 years from two false ideologies, which insist that THEY are not only superior but have come to take Judaism's place.
> 
> Replacement ideologies, became replacement of religion, history, culture, everything .........unless the Jews agree to go back to being second class citizens and be allowed to be treated worse than they treat dogs.
> 
> There is no one who can make you understand that what you are saying is nothing more than learned superiority over the Jews.
> 
> We do not care for your superiority.  We care to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our country, our religion, our history, and our culture from people who, like you, are more than intent in destroying it.
> 
> 
> Israel IS a legitimate country.  It got permission from many countries to be recreated, ONLY because the Jews ARE the indigenous people of the land.
> 
> The New Testament attests to that.
> 
> The Quran attests to that.
> 
> But you want to change, not only the whole history of the Jewish people, you want to change all that is written in those books, and in every history book, or any book which is proof that the Jews are the indigenous people of the holy land, and that all they did with the Mandate for Palestine, was to reclaim their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> You have shown NO PROOF at all that the Jewish people who recreated Israel are "invaders".
> 
> And you cannot show any proof that the Arabs have been indigenous to Ancient Canaan for the past 10,000, much less for the past 4000 years, or even 1000 years.
> 
> 
> The proof is with us.  And we shall fight your lies, no matter how much you believe in them , with the truth every time.
> 
> And every time we shall WIN.
> 
> This is our history:
> 
> History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> Always has been and always will be.
> It is not the history of Arabs who were forced to abandon their gods in the 7th Century CE under the sword of Mohammad and his army to convert to Islam while they were ALL living in Arabia.
> 
> Find the Arabs in the Land of Israel before the 7th Century CE in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Israel CHAI.
> 
> The People of Israel LIVE.
> 
> 
> (Now, go back to the religious community, and please stay there.   There is nothing for you here.  There are no fools for you to turn your mission into a success.   Lies never win.  Ever)
Click to expand...


But this all yours nonsense, can not make Israel legitimate and Israel never exist in history. Jew are invader,. 
Look again you are changing tack because you are lair how shame you are earning on lies.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what Your mufti tells You in Friday sermons?
> I'm pretty sure he knows little about Islam let alone Judaism.
> After 2000 of Christianity and 1400 years of Islam trying to force Jews to abandon their traditions, the result is a great failure against all odds. The only certain thing to say for sure is that Hashem fulfills His promises,
> Israel is there to attest to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I am saying jew don't know where they are coming from and where they are going to means confused.
> fro example, jew don't know that they are not native from holly land and they are also don't know where they came from, a little unknown village in IRAQ. They are also don't know that you can not tell to Prophet that you are not prophet because jew are not God but may be jew are g-d. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall can not be worshiped because this WALL built to hold hill and House Of Allah on it. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall is not a God and only God can be worshiped but Jew don't beleave in God because they are g-d......more. Means Jew idea is flop.
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start your own little thread about " Jews are confused " in the religion community.
> 
> Your ranting does not belong in this thread or this community at all.
> 
> Do it.   Because the next time you post here, I may just report you and you may just be banned from posting on this thread.  The same way many like you have been to this day.  Because you do not know the meaning of respecting where you are, and what the threads are about.
> 
> Understand?
> 
> Whether you post here again, or start your own thread in the right community will be the answer as to how much you understand the word *respect.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its you and your people change the track, when you jew can not handle debate. Not blame to me.
> Its me who remind you last time that lets go back to topic. Did you remember?
> Lets go back the topic. Israel is not legitimate country, jew are invader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is how you handle debates about the creation of Israel:
> 
> 3335
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *RehmaniVIP Member*
> 
> Israel is not a legitimate country. And no one can allocate some one else to other who is even not native.
> Paid agent can not change the facts by spreading lies around.
> 
> ----------------
> This is your allegation.  Based on every lie told by Christian and Muslim extremists who want to see Israel destroyed because it is a Jewish Country, and those extremists cannot stand that Jews would have any freedom to be sovereign of their own destiny ever again.
> 
> This is who you are.  This is your belief.  From those beliefs.
> 
> You do not have one shred of evidence and never will, that the Jews who recreated their Nation ON THEIR ANCIENT homeland, are not descendants of the ancient Israelites.  Never will.  Why?  Because it does not exist.
> 
> As I posted here before, you are very clear as to what you have come here, and on the religious threads to do:
> 
> DELEGITIMIZE   the Jewish people, the Jewish Nation, the Jewish History, the Jewish culture, for the supremacist ideology you now represent.  Be it Christianity, be it Islam, THEY  invented the lies which lead to the hatred of all Jews.
> 
> That is what Jews have had to deal with for the past 2000 years from two false ideologies, which insist that THEY are not only superior but have come to take Judaism's place.
> 
> Replacement ideologies, became replacement of religion, history, culture, everything .........unless the Jews agree to go back to being second class citizens and be allowed to be treated worse than they treat dogs.
> 
> There is no one who can make you understand that what you are saying is nothing more than learned superiority over the Jews.
> 
> We do not care for your superiority.  We care to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our country, our religion, our history, and our culture from people who, like you, are more than intent in destroying it.
> 
> 
> Israel IS a legitimate country.  It got permission from many countries to be recreated, ONLY because the Jews ARE the indigenous people of the land.
> 
> The New Testament attests to that.
> 
> The Quran attests to that.
> 
> But you want to change, not only the whole history of the Jewish people, you want to change all that is written in those books, and in every history book, or any book which is proof that the Jews are the indigenous people of the holy land, and that all they did with the Mandate for Palestine, was to reclaim their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> You have shown NO PROOF at all that the Jewish people who recreated Israel are "invaders".
> 
> And you cannot show any proof that the Arabs have been indigenous to Ancient Canaan for the past 10,000, much less for the past 4000 years, or even 1000 years.
> 
> 
> The proof is with us.  And we shall fight your lies, no matter how much you believe in them , with the truth every time.
> 
> And every time we shall WIN.
> 
> This is our history:
> 
> History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> Always has been and always will be.
> It is not the history of Arabs who were forced to abandon their gods in the 7th Century CE under the sword of Mohammad and his army to convert to Islam while they were ALL living in Arabia.
> 
> Find the Arabs in the Land of Israel before the 7th Century CE in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Israel CHAI.
> 
> The People of Israel LIVE.
> 
> 
> (Now, go back to the religious community, and please stay there.   There is nothing for you here.  There are no fools for you to turn your mission into a success.   Lies never win.  Ever)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this all yours nonsense, can not make Israel legitimate and Israel never exist in history. Jew are invader,.
> Look again you are changing tack because you are lair how shame you are earning on lies.
Click to expand...

Israel never existed in history.

Where have I heard that before?

Oh, yes !!!!!

Never Mind  !!!!!


Am Israel Chai  !!!!

THE   PEOPLE  OF  ISRAEL   LIVE  (for over 3000 years, yeah !!!! )

[ "Music  Maestro "  - We Are The Champions, My Friend  !!!!!!  ]


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I am saying jew don't know where they are coming from and where they are going to means confused.
> fro example, jew don't know that they are not native from holly land and they are also don't know where they came from, a little unknown village in IRAQ. They are also don't know that you can not tell to Prophet that you are not prophet because jew are not God but may be jew are g-d. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall can not be worshiped because this WALL built to hold hill and House Of Allah on it. Jew also don't know that a retaining wall is not a God and only God can be worshiped but Jew don't beleave in God because they are g-d......more. Means Jew idea is flop.
> "When I said follow my signature comments means there is massage for jew to correct themselves. As Jew idea is finished now as Masaya is not coming 3000 years passed.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow God or follow themselves means or call themselves g-d.
> I will say jew are confused that they follow Prophet or Prophet follow to jew.
> I will say jew are confused that they live among the mankind and consider themselves special.
> I will say jew are confused that they worship of God (Ala) or worship the retaining wall which is build to hold the Mosque on the hill by common people.
> I will say jew are confused that they call themselves Buni Israeli, Abrahami but jew are following the common man Yahuda and calling themselves jew.
> I will say jew are confused that what is holly or what is not holly like retaining wall like Jerusalem and jew don't know that the holly title only come with the name of Prophet. While jew's not a single Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem means that retaining wall can not be holly. And it is built to retain the hill not to worship."
> 
> 
> 
> Start your own little thread about " Jews are confused " in the religion community.
> 
> Your ranting does not belong in this thread or this community at all.
> 
> Do it.   Because the next time you post here, I may just report you and you may just be banned from posting on this thread.  The same way many like you have been to this day.  Because you do not know the meaning of respecting where you are, and what the threads are about.
> 
> Understand?
> 
> Whether you post here again, or start your own thread in the right community will be the answer as to how much you understand the word *respect.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its you and your people change the track, when you jew can not handle debate. Not blame to me.
> Its me who remind you last time that lets go back to topic. Did you remember?
> Lets go back the topic. Israel is not legitimate country, jew are invader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is how you handle debates about the creation of Israel:
> 
> 3335
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *RehmaniVIP Member*
> 
> Israel is not a legitimate country. And no one can allocate some one else to other who is even not native.
> Paid agent can not change the facts by spreading lies around.
> 
> ----------------
> This is your allegation.  Based on every lie told by Christian and Muslim extremists who want to see Israel destroyed because it is a Jewish Country, and those extremists cannot stand that Jews would have any freedom to be sovereign of their own destiny ever again.
> 
> This is who you are.  This is your belief.  From those beliefs.
> 
> You do not have one shred of evidence and never will, that the Jews who recreated their Nation ON THEIR ANCIENT homeland, are not descendants of the ancient Israelites.  Never will.  Why?  Because it does not exist.
> 
> As I posted here before, you are very clear as to what you have come here, and on the religious threads to do:
> 
> DELEGITIMIZE   the Jewish people, the Jewish Nation, the Jewish History, the Jewish culture, for the supremacist ideology you now represent.  Be it Christianity, be it Islam, THEY  invented the lies which lead to the hatred of all Jews.
> 
> That is what Jews have had to deal with for the past 2000 years from two false ideologies, which insist that THEY are not only superior but have come to take Judaism's place.
> 
> Replacement ideologies, became replacement of religion, history, culture, everything .........unless the Jews agree to go back to being second class citizens and be allowed to be treated worse than they treat dogs.
> 
> There is no one who can make you understand that what you are saying is nothing more than learned superiority over the Jews.
> 
> We do not care for your superiority.  We care to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our country, our religion, our history, and our culture from people who, like you, are more than intent in destroying it.
> 
> 
> Israel IS a legitimate country.  It got permission from many countries to be recreated, ONLY because the Jews ARE the indigenous people of the land.
> 
> The New Testament attests to that.
> 
> The Quran attests to that.
> 
> But you want to change, not only the whole history of the Jewish people, you want to change all that is written in those books, and in every history book, or any book which is proof that the Jews are the indigenous people of the holy land, and that all they did with the Mandate for Palestine, was to reclaim their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> You have shown NO PROOF at all that the Jewish people who recreated Israel are "invaders".
> 
> And you cannot show any proof that the Arabs have been indigenous to Ancient Canaan for the past 10,000, much less for the past 4000 years, or even 1000 years.
> 
> 
> The proof is with us.  And we shall fight your lies, no matter how much you believe in them , with the truth every time.
> 
> And every time we shall WIN.
> 
> This is our history:
> 
> History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> Always has been and always will be.
> It is not the history of Arabs who were forced to abandon their gods in the 7th Century CE under the sword of Mohammad and his army to convert to Islam while they were ALL living in Arabia.
> 
> Find the Arabs in the Land of Israel before the 7th Century CE in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Israel CHAI.
> 
> The People of Israel LIVE.
> 
> 
> (Now, go back to the religious community, and please stay there.   There is nothing for you here.  There are no fools for you to turn your mission into a success.   Lies never win.  Ever)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this all yours nonsense, can not make Israel legitimate and Israel never exist in history. Jew are invader,.
> Look again you are changing tack because you are lair how shame you are earning on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel never existed in history.
> 
> Where have I heard that before?
> 
> Oh, yes !!!!!
> 
> Never Mind  !!!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!!!
> 
> THE   PEOPLE  OF  ISRAEL   LIVE  (for over 3000 years, yeah !!!! )
> 
> [ "Music  Maestro "  - We Are The Champions, My Friend  !!!!!!  ]
Click to expand...

But not now, this is end time, good for jew follow my advise and restore the status of Holly Land and apologized the people of Palestine establish trust among the mankind and give the flop idea of israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start your own little thread about " Jews are confused " in the religion community.
> 
> Your ranting does not belong in this thread or this community at all.
> 
> Do it.   Because the next time you post here, I may just report you and you may just be banned from posting on this thread.  The same way many like you have been to this day.  Because you do not know the meaning of respecting where you are, and what the threads are about.
> 
> Understand?
> 
> Whether you post here again, or start your own thread in the right community will be the answer as to how much you understand the word *respect.*
> 
> 
> 
> Its you and your people change the track, when you jew can not handle debate. Not blame to me.
> Its me who remind you last time that lets go back to topic. Did you remember?
> Lets go back the topic. Israel is not legitimate country, jew are invader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is how you handle debates about the creation of Israel:
> 
> 3335
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *RehmaniVIP Member*
> 
> Israel is not a legitimate country. And no one can allocate some one else to other who is even not native.
> Paid agent can not change the facts by spreading lies around.
> 
> ----------------
> This is your allegation.  Based on every lie told by Christian and Muslim extremists who want to see Israel destroyed because it is a Jewish Country, and those extremists cannot stand that Jews would have any freedom to be sovereign of their own destiny ever again.
> 
> This is who you are.  This is your belief.  From those beliefs.
> 
> You do not have one shred of evidence and never will, that the Jews who recreated their Nation ON THEIR ANCIENT homeland, are not descendants of the ancient Israelites.  Never will.  Why?  Because it does not exist.
> 
> As I posted here before, you are very clear as to what you have come here, and on the religious threads to do:
> 
> DELEGITIMIZE   the Jewish people, the Jewish Nation, the Jewish History, the Jewish culture, for the supremacist ideology you now represent.  Be it Christianity, be it Islam, THEY  invented the lies which lead to the hatred of all Jews.
> 
> That is what Jews have had to deal with for the past 2000 years from two false ideologies, which insist that THEY are not only superior but have come to take Judaism's place.
> 
> Replacement ideologies, became replacement of religion, history, culture, everything .........unless the Jews agree to go back to being second class citizens and be allowed to be treated worse than they treat dogs.
> 
> There is no one who can make you understand that what you are saying is nothing more than learned superiority over the Jews.
> 
> We do not care for your superiority.  We care to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our country, our religion, our history, and our culture from people who, like you, are more than intent in destroying it.
> 
> 
> Israel IS a legitimate country.  It got permission from many countries to be recreated, ONLY because the Jews ARE the indigenous people of the land.
> 
> The New Testament attests to that.
> 
> The Quran attests to that.
> 
> But you want to change, not only the whole history of the Jewish people, you want to change all that is written in those books, and in every history book, or any book which is proof that the Jews are the indigenous people of the holy land, and that all they did with the Mandate for Palestine, was to reclaim their ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> You have shown NO PROOF at all that the Jewish people who recreated Israel are "invaders".
> 
> And you cannot show any proof that the Arabs have been indigenous to Ancient Canaan for the past 10,000, much less for the past 4000 years, or even 1000 years.
> 
> 
> The proof is with us.  And we shall fight your lies, no matter how much you believe in them , with the truth every time.
> 
> And every time we shall WIN.
> 
> This is our history:
> 
> History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel - Wikipedia
> 
> Always has been and always will be.
> It is not the history of Arabs who were forced to abandon their gods in the 7th Century CE under the sword of Mohammad and his army to convert to Islam while they were ALL living in Arabia.
> 
> Find the Arabs in the Land of Israel before the 7th Century CE in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Israel CHAI.
> 
> The People of Israel LIVE.
> 
> 
> (Now, go back to the religious community, and please stay there.   There is nothing for you here.  There are no fools for you to turn your mission into a success.   Lies never win.  Ever)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this all yours nonsense, can not make Israel legitimate and Israel never exist in history. Jew are invader,.
> Look again you are changing tack because you are lair how shame you are earning on lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel never existed in history.
> 
> Where have I heard that before?
> 
> Oh, yes !!!!!
> 
> Never Mind  !!!!!
> 
> 
> Am Israel Chai  !!!!
> 
> THE   PEOPLE  OF  ISRAEL   LIVE  (for over 3000 years, yeah !!!! )
> 
> [ "Music  Maestro "  - We Are The Champions, My Friend  !!!!!!  ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not now, this is end time, good for jew follow my advise and restore the status of Holly Land and apologized the people of Palestine establish trust among the mankind and give the flop idea of israel.
Click to expand...

You are such a tiny, little, good for nothing loser.

 End times = nonsense from Christianity.

And the rest you wrote is all Christian and Muslim nonsense as well.


We do not follow Christianity's commands, Mr. Loser.
Or Islam's.

Israel is born again with its indigenous Jewish people exactly because of the way Christianity and Islam chose to treat all Jews for the past 1700 years.


It is over.  We say *No More.*  You like it or not.

 Yes, we apologize *that you are all such losers* and that you cannot live without us being submissive to your will and your power.


Am Israel Chai !!

The People of Israel Live .  

And Live.  And Live.  And Live.


----------



## Rehmani

abu afak said:


> Nothing for me Rehmani You STUPID BIGOT?
> I shoved it up your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Jew also don't know that a retaining wall can not be worshiped because this WALL built to hold hill and House Of Allah on it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Wall has been archaeogically dated to 200 BC.
> About 800-900 Years BEFORE ARAB MUSLIMS INVADED JUDEA/Jerusalem and built a Mosque on TOP of the Foundation of the Jewish Second Temple.
> Arabs are native to ARABIA, the ARABian Peninsula.
> 
> Ergo, Mohammed did NOT ascend to Heaven from al aqsa. He died 50-60 years before it was built.
> The inclusion of al aqsa as a Muslim Holy place is BS Revisionism.
> The usual Muslim Taqiyyah.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Jew also don't know that a retaining wall is not a God and only God can be worshiped but Jew don't beleave in God because they are g-d......more. Means Jew idea is flop.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So Muslims Can't worship the Kabah (Moon God) either.
> 
> The whole Muslim religion is based on a piecemeal reconstruction of many scribes recording sayings of illiterate MoHAMmed.
> Most of it was lost.
> Much changed
> The earliest Korans are 'Palimpsests'. New text written over old.
> 
> The Koran is incoherent and contradictory, and not in chronological order.
> It is arranged by Chapter size!
> As if by an Illiterate who didn't know what the text said.
> *
> 
> Your posts are a joke and you don't even know Your religion much less Judaism.
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

How dumped you are, after all I dragged you out from your shell other wise you keep using symbol.
do you know the meaning of HOLLY?
Idiot meaning of holly is attached with Prophet only and yours not single prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
Po.... ask to Sixty Fan how to talk on this forum other wise she kicked you out from here.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumped you are, after all I dragged you out from your shell other wise you keep using symbol.
> do you know the meaning of HOLLY?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "holy" or have Muslims Fabricated another word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot meaning of holly is attached with Prophet only and yours not single prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> Po.... ask to Sixty Fan how to talk on this forum other wise she kicked you out from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *MoHAMmed was not a Prophet he was more like Blackbeard the Pirate.
> The Koran a manual on how to divide up the spoils/women.*
> 
> and you could Not answer my rebuttal of your idiot claims about the Wailing Wall, or the Ass-Backward, Contradictory, jumble that is "the Koran".
> A Perverted remnant of what a few guys thought he said.
> Most of it lost in any case
> 
> Your terrible English makes you almost undebatable, but your Claims are more Idiotic by far.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Po..Idiot, Idiot come with your stupid language, this is one thing, second idiot come when you change the topic. Ask to your mother Sixty F.
> Idiot you can reject your prophet not others. Do you know this?
> And Holly come with prophet only. Do you know this? Ask neutral poster on the forum meaning of holly.
> Idiot you know that Prophet can you, you can not reject a prophet. Do you know this? Ask to forum posters.
> Idiot all stone work use in Jerusalem, didn't come from the moon. And retaining wall can not be worshiped while it is not built by any prophet. Dumb get out from your arrogance follow the line of prophets and give up your nonsense that you are special race or masaya is coming. he is not coming 3000 years passed.
Click to expand...


So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
then what does it make You?

And if I showed several...

By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.


----------



## Sixties Fan

People still tell the story of Israel as: When the Jews of the Islamic world moved to Israel they joined the story of the Ashkenazim – so the story of Israel is the story of the Jews of Europe. But having thought about this, and having lived here for 23 years, it is clear to me that what actually happened is much closer to the opposite. The remnants of the Jews of Europe come to the Middle East and inserted themselves into the story of the Jews of the Islamic world. The State of Israel is shaped by our contact with Islam and Jews who have lived here for centuries. The dominant narrative of the European Jews is wrong. Looking ahead, telling Israel’s story in the 21st century will have a lot less to do with the Warsaw Ghetto than it will with Kurdistan and Aleppo

(full article online)

‘Telling Israel’s story in the 21st century will have a lot less to do with the Warsaw Ghetto than it will with Kurdistan and Aleppo.’ An interview with Matti Friedman


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumped you are, after all I dragged you out from your shell other wise you keep using symbol.
> do you know the meaning of HOLLY?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "holy" or have Muslims Fabricated another word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot meaning of holly is attached with Prophet only and yours not single prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> Po.... ask to Sixty Fan how to talk on this forum other wise she kicked you out from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *MoHAMmed was not a Prophet he was more like Blackbeard the Pirate.
> The Koran a manual on how to divide up the spoils/women.*
> 
> and you could Not answer my rebuttal of your idiot claims about the Wailing Wall, or the Ass-Backward, Contradictory, jumble that is "the Koran".
> A Perverted remnant of what a few guys thought he said.
> Most of it lost in any case
> 
> Your terrible English makes you almost undebatable, but your Claims are more Idiotic by far.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Po..Idiot, Idiot come with your stupid language, this is one thing, second idiot come when you change the topic. Ask to your mother Sixty F.
> Idiot you can reject your prophet not others. Do you know this?
> And Holly come with prophet only. Do you know this? Ask neutral poster on the forum meaning of holly.
> Idiot you know that Prophet can you, you can not reject a prophet. Do you know this? Ask to forum posters.
> Idiot all stone work use in Jerusalem, didn't come from the moon. And retaining wall can not be worshiped while it is not built by any prophet. Dumb get out from your arrogance follow the line of prophets and give up your nonsense that you are special race or masaya is coming. he is not coming 3000 years passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
Click to expand...


If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.

second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Let's get the ground rules straight here. This is NOT a thread to bash each other religions. This thread topic is about creation of Israel and the West Bank under British Mandate. Any BIBLICAL or prophet issues you might have is over-thinking the problem and the topic.. 

If it doesn't DIRECTLY address how the current borders evolved --- it's not on topic.. Offenders will be thread-banned.   abu afak Rehmani 
*


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumped you are, after all I dragged you out from your shell other wise you keep using symbol.
> do you know the meaning of HOLLY?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "holy" or have Muslims Fabricated another word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot meaning of holly is attached with Prophet only and yours not single prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> Po.... ask to Sixty Fan how to talk on this forum other wise she kicked you out from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *MoHAMmed was not a Prophet he was more like Blackbeard the Pirate.
> The Koran a manual on how to divide up the spoils/women.*
> 
> and you could Not answer my rebuttal of your idiot claims about the Wailing Wall, or the Ass-Backward, Contradictory, jumble that is "the Koran".
> A Perverted remnant of what a few guys thought he said.
> Most of it lost in any case
> 
> Your terrible English makes you almost undebatable, but your Claims are more Idiotic by far.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Po..Idiot, Idiot come with your stupid language, this is one thing, second idiot come when you change the topic. Ask to your mother Sixty F.
> Idiot you can reject your prophet not others. Do you know this?
> And Holly come with prophet only. Do you know this? Ask neutral poster on the forum meaning of holly.
> Idiot you know that Prophet can you, you can not reject a prophet. Do you know this? Ask to forum posters.
> Idiot all stone work use in Jerusalem, didn't come from the moon. And retaining wall can not be worshiped while it is not built by any prophet. Dumb get out from your arrogance follow the line of prophets and give up your nonsense that you are special race or masaya is coming. he is not coming 3000 years passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
Click to expand...



Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.


----------



## Sixties Fan

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumped you are, after all I dragged you out from your shell other wise you keep using symbol.
> do you know the meaning of HOLLY?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "holy" or have Muslims Fabricated another word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot meaning of holly is attached with Prophet only and yours not single prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> Po.... ask to Sixty Fan how to talk on this forum other wise she kicked you out from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *MoHAMmed was not a Prophet he was more like Blackbeard the Pirate.
> The Koran a manual on how to divide up the spoils/women.*
> 
> and you could Not answer my rebuttal of your idiot claims about the Wailing Wall, or the Ass-Backward, Contradictory, jumble that is "the Koran".
> A Perverted remnant of what a few guys thought he said.
> Most of it lost in any case
> 
> Your terrible English makes you almost undebatable, but your Claims are more Idiotic by far.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Po..Idiot, Idiot come with your stupid language, this is one thing, second idiot come when you change the topic. Ask to your mother Sixty F.
> Idiot you can reject your prophet not others. Do you know this?
> And Holly come with prophet only. Do you know this? Ask neutral poster on the forum meaning of holly.
> Idiot you know that Prophet can you, you can not reject a prophet. Do you know this? Ask to forum posters.
> Idiot all stone work use in Jerusalem, didn't come from the moon. And retaining wall can not be worshiped while it is not built by any prophet. Dumb get out from your arrogance follow the line of prophets and give up your nonsense that you are special race or masaya is coming. he is not coming 3000 years passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.


----------



## rylah

Sixties Fan said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "holy" or have Muslims Fabricated another word?
> 
> *MoHAMmed was not a Prophet he was more like Blackbeard the Pirate.
> The Koran a manual on how to divide up the spoils/women.*
> 
> and you could Not answer my rebuttal of your idiot claims about the Wailing Wall, or the Ass-Backward, Contradictory, jumble that is "the Koran".
> A Perverted remnant of what a few guys thought he said.
> Most of it lost in any case
> 
> Your terrible English makes you almost undebatable, but your Claims are more Idiotic by far.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Po..Idiot, Idiot come with your stupid language, this is one thing, second idiot come when you change the topic. Ask to your mother Sixty F.
> Idiot you can reject your prophet not others. Do you know this?
> And Holly come with prophet only. Do you know this? Ask neutral poster on the forum meaning of holly.
> Idiot you know that Prophet can you, you can not reject a prophet. Do you know this? Ask to forum posters.
> Idiot all stone work use in Jerusalem, didn't come from the moon. And retaining wall can not be worshiped while it is not built by any prophet. Dumb get out from your arrogance follow the line of prophets and give up your nonsense that you are special race or masaya is coming. he is not coming 3000 years passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...


_..." as envisaged by the prophets of Israel"_


----------



## rylah

Sixties Fan said:


> People still tell the story of Israel as: When the Jews of the Islamic world moved to Israel they joined the story of the Ashkenazim – so the story of Israel is the story of the Jews of Europe. But having thought about this, and having lived here for 23 years, it is clear to me that what actually happened is much closer to the opposite. The remnants of the Jews of Europe come to the Middle East and inserted themselves into the story of the Jews of the Islamic world. The State of Israel is shaped by our contact with Islam and Jews who have lived here for centuries. The dominant narrative of the European Jews is wrong. Looking ahead, telling Israel’s story in the 21st century will have a lot less to do with the Warsaw Ghetto than it will with Kurdistan and Aleppo
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> ‘Telling Israel’s story in the 21st century will have a lot less to do with the Warsaw Ghetto than it will with Kurdistan and Aleppo.’ An interview with Matti Friedman



One of the most interesting posts I've ever read in this forum.
Thrilling! Certainly worth a listen.


----------



## Rehmani

Coyote said:


> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *


Why I replied other than the topic?
First, Mostly poster when they failed to argue they change the track. 
Second, This topic can not be separated from the religion.


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumped you are, after all I dragged you out from your shell other wise you keep using symbol.
> do you know the meaning of HOLLY?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "holy" or have Muslims Fabricated another word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot meaning of holly is attached with Prophet only and yours not single prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> Po.... ask to Sixty Fan how to talk on this forum other wise she kicked you out from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *MoHAMmed was not a Prophet he was more like Blackbeard the Pirate.
> The Koran a manual on how to divide up the spoils/women.*
> 
> and you could Not answer my rebuttal of your idiot claims about the Wailing Wall, or the Ass-Backward, Contradictory, jumble that is "the Koran".
> A Perverted remnant of what a few guys thought he said.
> Most of it lost in any case
> 
> Your terrible English makes you almost undebatable, but your Claims are more Idiotic by far.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Po..Idiot, Idiot come with your stupid language, this is one thing, second idiot come when you change the topic. Ask to your mother Sixty F.
> Idiot you can reject your prophet not others. Do you know this?
> And Holly come with prophet only. Do you know this? Ask neutral poster on the forum meaning of holly.
> Idiot you know that Prophet can you, you can not reject a prophet. Do you know this? Ask to forum posters.
> Idiot all stone work use in Jerusalem, didn't come from the moon. And retaining wall can not be worshiped while it is not built by any prophet. Dumb get out from your arrogance follow the line of prophets and give up your nonsense that you are special race or masaya is coming. he is not coming 3000 years passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

Ask to Jew Rabbi about how many prophets they believe.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Sixties Fan said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "holy" or have Muslims Fabricated another word?
> 
> *MoHAMmed was not a Prophet he was more like Blackbeard the Pirate.
> The Koran a manual on how to divide up the spoils/women.*
> 
> and you could Not answer my rebuttal of your idiot claims about the Wailing Wall, or the Ass-Backward, Contradictory, jumble that is "the Koran".
> A Perverted remnant of what a few guys thought he said.
> Most of it lost in any case
> 
> Your terrible English makes you almost undebatable, but your Claims are more Idiotic by far.
> `
> 
> 
> 
> Po..Idiot, Idiot come with your stupid language, this is one thing, second idiot come when you change the topic. Ask to your mother Sixty F.
> Idiot you can reject your prophet not others. Do you know this?
> And Holly come with prophet only. Do you know this? Ask neutral poster on the forum meaning of holly.
> Idiot you know that Prophet can you, you can not reject a prophet. Do you know this? Ask to forum posters.
> Idiot all stone work use in Jerusalem, didn't come from the moon. And retaining wall can not be worshiped while it is not built by any prophet. Dumb get out from your arrogance follow the line of prophets and give up your nonsense that you are special race or masaya is coming. he is not coming 3000 years passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...



Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Po..Idiot, Idiot come with your stupid language, this is one thing, second idiot come when you change the topic. Ask to your mother Sixty F.
> Idiot you can reject your prophet not others. Do you know this?
> And Holly come with prophet only. Do you know this? Ask neutral poster on the forum meaning of holly.
> Idiot you know that Prophet can you, you can not reject a prophet. Do you know this? Ask to forum posters.
> Idiot all stone work use in Jerusalem, didn't come from the moon. And retaining wall can not be worshiped while it is not built by any prophet. Dumb get out from your arrogance follow the line of prophets and give up your nonsense that you are special race or masaya is coming. he is not coming 3000 years passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
Click to expand...

You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.

But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi. 
And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
Click to expand...


Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
Click to expand...

As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
Click to expand...

Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
Click to expand...


The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.

That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land, 
anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian kings.
> 
> All of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land.
Click to expand...

By whom?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian kings.
> 
> All of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By whom?
Click to expand...


By the Allied Powers, the same ones who were helped by the Arabs to bring down the Ottoman Caliphate, and the same ones who were responsible for creating new states in the rest of the middle east
giving 99% of the land to Arabs.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

There has not been a time that the Israelis, from the time of the Declaration of Independence, has not had defined borders.



P F Tinmore said:


> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.


*(COMMENT)*

It is apparent to me that you do not know what "define borders" means.

Defined borders are those borders defended by sovereign power.  That is something the Israels have had since 1948, and something in which the Arab Palestinians have not had since they declared independence in 1988.  To this day, the Arab Palestinians do not have any borders that they defend or that express their sovereignty. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ForeverYoung436

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
Click to expand...



What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> There has not been a time that the Israelis, from the time of the Declaration of Independence, has not had defined borders.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is apparent to me that you do not know what "define borders" means.
> 
> Defined borders are those borders defended by sovereign power.  That is something the Israels have had since 1948, and something in which the Arab Palestinians have not had since they declared independence in 1988.  To this day, the Arab Palestinians do not have any borders that they defend or that express their sovereignty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel has internationally recognized *de facto* borders.


----------



## Sixties Fan

A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:

 S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that *"there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York*,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."



Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel -  the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.

(full article online)

No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:
> 
> S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that *"there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York*,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel -  the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


It is interesting that the British and the Zionists both called it colonialism. It was not until later that Israel changed its shtick to self determination.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:
> 
> S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that *"there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York*,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel -  the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the British and the Zionists both called it colonialism. It was not until later that Israel changed its shtick to self determination.
Click to expand...

It is wrong that both British and Jews called it "colonialism" when it has always been the return of the indigenous Jews to their ancient homeland, where many Jews continued to live.

No shtick, not then, not now, not ever.

Colonizing means taking over someone's land as Europeans and Arabs have done for the past 1700 years.

Get used to the idea that Jews are BACK in their ancient homeland, even though 80% of it has been stolen by colonizing, invading, migrating Arabs.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ ForeverYoung436, et al,

Yes, that is a good question.



ForeverYoung436 said:


> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?


*(COMMENT)*

The US Administration _(ie White House or Executive Branch)_ peridoicallyruns afoul with the Congress _(ie Capitol Hill or Legislature)_ over the position the US holds relative to International Law and Foreign Policy.   There has been times when the Congress insisted that the US should not seek International Consensus - or that International Consensus not play a part in the US decision making process.

The White House has been put in conflict between US Domestic Policy as expressed by Congress and the interpretation of International Law as expressed by Convention, International Agreements, Individual Security Assistance Commitments, and Treaties.  This has been especially true with regard to the US - Israeli status 'vs' US - Arab League Status, and US Relations indivudally with Arab States. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:
> 
> S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that *"there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York*,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel -  the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the British and the Zionists both called it colonialism. It was not until later that Israel changed its shtick to self determination.
Click to expand...


Israeli self-determination by way of re-establishing the Jewish State was a goal of the Mandate.

What did the Arabs-Moslems call their colonization of the area?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of other arguments against Zionism being settler-colonialist have been posited. Wikipedia lists a few. Perhaps the most cogent is this one:
> 
> S. Ilan Troen, in 'De-Judaizing the Homeland: Academic Politics in Rewriting the History of Palestine', argues that Zionism was the repatriation of a long displaced indigenous population to their historic homeland, and that "Zionists did not see themselves as foreigners or conquerors, for centuries in the Diaspora they had been strangers". Troen further argues that there are several differences between European colonialism and the Zionist movement, including that *"there is no New Vilna, New Bialystock, New Warsaw, New England, New York*,...and so on" in Israel. He writes that "mandates were intended to nurture the formation of new states until independence and this instrument was to be applied to Jews, even as it was for the Arab peoples of Syria and Iraq. In this view, Jews were a people not only entitled to a state but that polity was naturally located in a part of the world in which they had originated, had been resident since the ancient world, and still constituted a vital presence in many areas of the region, including Palestine" and that "perhaps the most manifest or visible evidence—for those who would be willing to acknowledge—were found in the revival of Hebrew into a living language; the marking the landscape with a Jewish identity; and the development of an indigenous culture with roots in the ancient past." He concludes that "casting Zionists as colonizers serves to present them as occupiers in a land to which, by definition, they do not belong."
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And beyond his excellent argument about there being no "New Nialystock" in Israel -  the communities that were built by Jews were, by and large, given the very names that they had in Biblical times, names that in many cases had been replaced by Arabic equivalents - of the Arab colonizers.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> No, Zionism is not settler colonialism ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that the British and the Zionists both called it colonialism. It was not until later that Israel changed its shtick to self determination.
Click to expand...


So what,  Arabs also used to refer to themselves as a separate race rather than a nation in official documents, are You suggesting we abandon the Palestinian narrative and discussing race?

It is also interesting that the Arabs attempted to cede the land to a king from Arabia, as opposed to seeking independence. They also referred to themselves as a separate race in official documents and considered the Palestinian identity to be "a Zionist invention".

What didn't change is Arabs still identify as foreign invaders marching under the flag of the 4 Caliphates that stole the lands from almost every nation in the middle east.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
Click to expand...

As I said you are not a jew and ask to sixty fan you can not discuss here your on nonsense.
Also ask to some rabbi too and I am not jew.
Lets say israel is not legitimate country.


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
Click to expand...


And it is one of the many reasons that israel can not be legitimate.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
Click to expand...

But you don't follow international laws and as you are already rejecting UN. And I am sure tomorrow when international law will be against israel you don't accept that either.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian kings.
> 
> All of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the Allied Powers, the same ones who were helped by the Arabs to bring down the Ottoman Caliphate, and the same ones who were responsible for creating new states in the rest of the middle east
> giving 99% of the land to Arabs.
Click to expand...

By the allied powers, the same one who helped to israel and divided the region in 5 different nation so no one can claim over israel.


----------



## Rehmani

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
Click to expand...

Are you?


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
Click to expand...

But now this member state is not following the UN order.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→   Rehmani, 

OK, I got a bit disoriented here.



Rehmani said:


> But now this member state is not following the UN order.


*(COMMENT)*

◈→ Back-up_!_

✪  Just what UN "*Order*" are we discussion here_? _ 

✪  Does the UN have the authority to dictate national activity_?_​
✪  Can the UN issue the US (or any other sovereign nation) an "order" of any kind?​
When we talk about sovereignty, we must remember that in politically backing the hostile components of the pro-Arab Palestinian consortium opposing Israeli Sovereignty _(Jewish National Home)_ and the national identity of the Jewish People:



			
				Self Determination: principle & the law • A/RES/20/2131 (XX). Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty  said:
			
		

> The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.
> • SOURCE LINK •


Translated from the general to the specific:

◈  The use of force _(by the International Community and the Pro-Arab Palestinian Consortium)_ to deprive _(Israeli)_ peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.​
The territorial integrity of Israel and it's International Boundaries ARE "self-Evident."  No matter what the Arab Palestinian may say, there is no country that does not recognize when they have passed from one sovereign territory into Israeli Sovereign Territory.  Even the Arab Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and West Bank _(including Jerusalem)_ can immediately tell where Israel sovereign control begins and ends.  Anyone that says or implies that Israel has no borders is simply ignorant of the ground truth and the reality that they don't comprehend the barriers at the border.  Even the "Great March" participants that find themselves prostrate on the wire have come to realize:  Hey, there really is a barrier here and it is protected by the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.

*Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?*

**


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.
> 
> *Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?*
> 
> **



Israel must be doing a really bad job of global dominance, since the U.N. passes resolution after resolution against it.  And with global dominance, can't they get an area of the world a little bigger than something that's the size of New Jersey?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

What utter nonsense.  This is a small group of pseudo-political scientist and military bunglers that tell tall tales of a magical country (Israel) used by Arab Palestinians to frighten the weak minded and constituent sheep into mimicking the Arab Mantra about how dangerous Israel is to regional peace.  And now, the antisemitic mumblers are trying to draw a picture about how much influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has on our President. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.
> Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure if this small group of Talk Show folks is opposing the CIA and by extension, the US --- or  --- if they are suggesting the Israelis are taking over South America.

These guys have too much free time.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> What utter nonsense.  This is a small group of pseudo-political scientist and military bunglers that tell tall tales of a magical country (Israel) used by Arab Palestinians to frighten the weak minded and constituent sheep into mimicking the Arab Mantra about how dangerous Israel is to regional peace.  And now, the antisemitic mumblers are trying to draw a picture about how much influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has on our President.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.
> Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure if this small group of Talk Show folks is opposing the CIA and by extension, the US --- or  --- if they are suggesting the Israelis are taking over South America.
> 
> These guys have too much free time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It is just interesting that when he started his radio program, he was one of these Israel can do no wrong people.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> What utter nonsense.  This is a small group of pseudo-political scientist and military bunglers that tell tall tales of a magical country (Israel) used by Arab Palestinians to frighten the weak minded and constituent sheep into mimicking the Arab Mantra about how dangerous Israel is to regional peace.  And now, the antisemitic mumblers are trying to draw a picture about how much influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has on our President.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Wilde is a fundamentalist Christian. He founded TruNews decades ago as a news program with a christian perspective on short wave radio. At that time he was very pro Israel.
> Is the Zionist Movement Leading Global Dominance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure if this small group of Talk Show folks is opposing the CIA and by extension, the US --- or  --- if they are suggesting the Israelis are taking over South America.
> 
> These guys have too much free time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is just interesting that when he started his radio program, he was one of these Israel can do no wrong people.
Click to expand...

Either what you are alleging about him is true, or is another way you and others have of playing mind games with people, to make it look as if Israel is doing wrong, or has done wrong towards the Arabs.

You do this ALL THE TIME.

Conspiracy Theories and Theorists have no place on this thread.


----------



## Rehmani

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→   Rehmani,
> 
> OK, I got a bit disoriented here.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But now this member state is not following the UN order.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈→ Back-up_!_
> 
> ✪  Just what UN "*Order*" are we discussion here_? _
> 
> ✪  Does the UN have the authority to dictate national activity_?_​
> ✪  Can the UN issue the US (or any other sovereign nation) an "order" of any kind?​
> When we talk about sovereignty, we must remember that in politically backing the hostile components of the pro-Arab Palestinian consortium opposing Israeli Sovereignty _(Jewish National Home)_ and the national identity of the Jewish People:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self Determination: principle & the law • A/RES/20/2131 (XX). Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty  said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.
> • SOURCE LINK •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translated from the general to the specific:
> 
> ◈  The use of force _(by the International Community and the Pro-Arab Palestinian Consortium)_ to deprive _(Israeli)_ peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.​
> The territorial integrity of Israel and it's International Boundaries ARE "self-Evident."  No matter what the Arab Palestinian may say, there is no country that does not recognize when they have passed from one sovereign territory into Israeli Sovereign Territory.  Even the Arab Palestinians of the Gaza Strip and West Bank _(including Jerusalem)_ can immediately tell where Israel sovereign control begins and ends.  Anyone that says or implies that Israel has no borders is simply ignorant of the ground truth and the reality that they don't comprehend the barriers at the border.  Even the "Great March" participants that find themselves prostrate on the wire have come to realize:  Hey, there really is a barrier here and it is protected by the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

✪ Just what UN "*Order*" are we discussion here_? 
Israel followed the order in 1949 when it was there favor._

✪ Does the UN have the authority to dictate national activity_?_
When UN have authority in 1949, but not now because it not Israel favor.

✪ Can the UN issue the US (or any other sovereign nation) an "order" of any kind?
UN can't issue the order of any VETO Power. This is the reason Israel is not following the UN order, not because of hostile Palestine and this is the very good reason HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH are formed, because Israel continuously refusing the rights/demands of people of Palestine backed by VETO. Means hostile reaction HAMAS/HEZBOLLAH only entered in the conflict because of Israeli paranoid-ism.
Means death is as definite as life is, it not means to give up the life. Similarly Israelis are invading Arab Land its not means Arab give up their Holly Land mean Israelis either give up the paranoid-ism or leave the Holly Land.            
"(politically backing the hostile components of the pro-Arab Palestinian consortium opposing Israel)" And what about Israeli invasion, are they fallen from the sky or appeared from the ground. Israel jew got holly land in return to help coalition against German. And now don't say that Jew didn't help coalition and German were mad to killed six million jew, which I will say, its a false claim that German killed six million jews.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Issa Amro describes himself as a "Palestinian activist based in Hebron, Palestine, Recognised Human Rights Defender by the UN and European Union."

He tweeted this on Monday:

The US consulate in Jerusalem was opened in 1844 to give services to the Palestinian people. after 175 years, Trump decided to emerge it to the US embassy in occupied Jerusalem. Last year he closed the Palestinian mission in the USA too, he is destroying the Palestinian cause.
— Issa Amro عيسى عمرو (@Issaamro) March 4, 2019


So I did a fact check. And everything he wrote was wrong, although in the end, in important ways, the US diplomats in Jerusalem helped create the Palestinian cause, but not until the 20th century.

All US Consulates in the Middle East in the 18th and 19th centuries were meant primarily to help the US increase trade with the region, and secondarily to help US travelers to the area. The main US consul in the first part of the 19th century was in Beirut, and all others reported to that one.

In 1844, based on the recommendation of a Congressman, US Secretary of State John Calhoun appointed a Judeophile named Warder Cresson as the first Consul of Jerusalem, a position Cresson desired. But he was considered a strange person by others who knew him - perhaps because of his love of Jews and his determination that their ingathering would help bring the Messiah in a few years - and the appointment was rescinded before Cresson took up the post, but after he divorced his wife and departed to the Holy Land.
-------------
It appears that during and after World War I, the American diplomatic role changed. Protestant missionaries and educators who went to Palestine became friendly with the local Arabs and soon became the backbone of the next generation of diplomats to Jerusalem, moving their pro-Arab ideas into the State Department, a tilt that remained for the next hundred years. On the other side of the coin, they taught their Arab friends about nationalism in the American-style schools they founded, and in that sense were a large reason for the emergence of Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism in the region in the 20th century. There is a lot about this in Michael Oren's book, Power, Faith and Fantasy.

(full article online)

The early US consuls in Jerusalem helped Jews a lot more than Arabs ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Mizrahi Jewish spies built Israel, their descendants meet racism there


----------



## Rehmani

But who ever built israel, its illegal.


----------



## rylah

ForeverYoung436 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
Click to expand...


Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.

Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.

The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).

San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.

All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.   

The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Interesting piece of foreign intervention.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
Click to expand...

And still you have not minded the foreign interference over the other 3 Mandates which gave only Muslim Arabs, and not the indigenous people of those areas, 99 % of previous Ottoman Empire land.

And you never will.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
Click to expand...


Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either You misunderstood what was said, or he was not a Rabbi.
> In anyway that is wrong, on every point, but You won't open a thread about it, because that bubble is too easy to burst for anyone with an average IQ.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said you are not jew. Lets talked about the topic that, is Israel legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

But still I will say israel is not legitimate state. Israel is built by gun force behind like coalition.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still you have not minded the foreign interference over the other 3 Mandates which gave only Muslim Arabs, and not the indigenous people of those areas, 99 % of previous Ottoman Empire land.
> 
> And you never will.
Click to expand...

Arab are indigenous people not jew.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel has never had a defined territory. That is a key component of a legitimate state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
Click to expand...

It is israeli who are denying the international laws.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory signed for the self determination of the Jewish nation was specifically defined.
> What followed was incremental and unlawful division of that land leading to 78% of that territory given to Arabian royalty.
> 
> That said, all of Palestine, on both banks of the river was defined as Jewish sovereign land,
> anything negating that is an infringement of international law and the US constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
Click to expand...


You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.

If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.

That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
Click to expand...

yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
Click to expand...


It's already the most free country in the region,
if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.

No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
Click to expand...


Besides which, Muslims are going against their own religion because even the Quran says that Israel belongs to the people of Moses.  Several honest Muslim Quranic scholars have attested to this fact.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
Click to expand...

As you are keep saying international laws, when these laws will change tomorrow you will refuse that too as you are rejecting UN because you don't have numbers now compare to 1949.

The masaya you are talking about we are not afraid of, you should be afraid of it because that is your end too. And start of Jesus PBUH and his followers but unfortunately you don't believe in any prophets and this is the reason I post my signature comments only for jew before time run out you should straight you path.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you are keep saying international laws, when these laws will change tomorrow you will refuse that too as you are rejecting UN because you don't have numbers now compare to 1949.
> 
> The masaya you are talking about we are not afraid of, you should be afraid of it because that is your end too. And start of Jesus PBUH and his followers but unfortunately you don't believe in any prophets and this is the reason I post my signature comments only for jew before time run out you should straight you path.
Click to expand...


In case there was any doubt about the ugliness of replacement theology.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
Click to expand...


That is exactly you people are you people create lies and then propagate it like a truth means make fool others and yourself. For example you call yourself special race but nobody else in the world consider you special. 
Now As you are created g-d, but no body knows who the hell you are, who follow the g-d and then who gd is. 
Now You appear from somewhere After 4 thousands years and created israel even Jacob PBUH didn't claim it actually who got the title of Israel, not the sinner yahuda.

Now And If you are comparing gd to GOD then again you are making fool to gd and yourself because you don't believe in Ala but in yourself.

Please follow my signature comments. It is written for jew only. Just look at your past and calculate that how many time you through from different type of difficult time. 

When I look at Your history I felt like people are treating you, like kicking/pushing you around how un respectful life you people are leading but not learning. 

The idea you people are chasing is a flop idea please give up 3/4 thousands years too much to learns. I am only trying to help you out and these things you can't see through your history, I am trying to show you.

Just learn from your history that how many time in history you people kicked around by others.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is absolutely, 100% true, except for the U.S. Constitution part.  What does that have to do with Israel, which was set up by the U.N., and of which Israel is a member state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
Click to expand...



International law is not votes at the UN.
Votes at the UN is a popularity contest, with bribes, threats, and a Security Counsel monopoly.
International law in the other hand is blind justice, based on simple principles of law and justice, that are codified ahead of time, to facilitate equality of application.
So it is not a popularity contest to claim Israel is illegitimate.
It is the basic rights of the native Palestinian people to have self determination and the return of their stolen homes.

Israel does not exist by law, justice, or even majority rule, but by might makes right.
Which is not a currently recognized principle, and instead is one universally denied and reviled.
The only hope for the continued existence of Israel is to somehow make amends, either allow the right of return, or make compensation or exchange of the land illegally taken from Palestinian natives in 1948.
There is no legal way those illegally displaced in 1948 can be ignored.


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> 
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides which, Muslims are going against their own religion because even the Quran says that Israel belongs to the people of Moses.  Several honest Muslim Quranic scholars have attested to this fact.
Click to expand...

How fool/simple you are. Israel never exist and Israel is a title given to Jacob PBUH. But foo people like you in the past reject Jacob PBUH/Israel and followed the sinner/commoner Yuhuda instead. You people should not give reference from Torah/Bible/Quran because you people never believe in Ala/God/Allah and consider special and reject prophets of God and how fool it is that you telling to prophet that you are not prophet.

Tell me. are you God?  
And if not, then who the hell you are who rejecting the prophets of Allah/God/Ala.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you are keep saying international laws, when these laws will change tomorrow you will refuse that too as you are rejecting UN because you don't have numbers now compare to 1949.
> 
> The masaya you are talking about we are not afraid of, you should be afraid of it because that is your end too. And start of Jesus PBUH and his followers but unfortunately you don't believe in any prophets and this is the reason I post my signature comments only for jew before time run out you should straight you path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case there was any doubt about the ugliness of replacement theology.
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you are keep saying international laws, when these laws will change tomorrow you will refuse that too as you are rejecting UN because you don't have numbers now compare to 1949.
> 
> The masaya you are talking about we are not afraid of, you should be afraid of it because that is your end too. And start of Jesus PBUH and his followers but unfortunately you don't believe in any prophets and this is the reason I post my signature comments only for jew before time run out you should straight you path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case there was any doubt about the ugliness of replacement theology.
Click to expand...

Please read comments I just posted to Forever Young 4. And please learn sooner is better.


----------



## Rigby5

ForeverYoung436 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> 
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides which, Muslims are going against their own religion because even the Quran says that Israel belongs to the people of Moses.  Several honest Muslim Quranic scholars have attested to this fact.
Click to expand...


The Quran most definitely does NOT at all say that Israel belongs to the people of Moses.
Moses was an Egyptian, and the Hebrew tribes have ZERO evidence of having anything to do with The Land of Canaan!
Why do you think it was called the Land of Canaan?
That is because it has been lived in and populated by mostly Canaanites, for over 8000 years!

The Canaanites did allow many others to live there as well, such as the Akkadians, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Urites, etc., but all those people STILL live there.  They never left and had lived there thousands of years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.  But clearly anyone who knows any history at all knows the Hebrew tribes did not belong there.
They were extremely unpopular invaders, and the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Romans all defeated and kicked the Hebrew out.
So the Hebrew only ruled there for a few hundred years at most.
And according to Judaism, Jews are not even supposed to be there now.
They are NOT supposed to go to Jerusalem until the Messiah comes and creates Zion for them some place on Earth.


----------



## Rehmani

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not votes at the UN.
> Votes at the UN is a popularity contest, with bribes, threats, and a Security Counsel monopoly.
> International law in the other hand is blind justice, based on simple principles of law and justice, that are codified ahead of time, to facilitate equality of application.
> So it is not a popularity contest to claim Israel is illegitimate.
> It is the basic rights of the native Palestinian people to have self determination and the return of their stolen homes.
> 
> Israel does not exist by law, justice, or even majority rule, but by might makes right.
> Which is not a currently recognized principle, and instead is one universally denied and reviled.
> The only hope for the continued existence of Israel is to somehow make amends, either allow the right of return, or make compensation or exchange of the land illegally taken from Palestinian natives in 1948.
> There is no legal way those illegally displaced in 1948 can be ignored.
Click to expand...


Israel never exist in history either.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> 
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly you people are you people create lies and then propagate it like a truth means make fool others and yourself. For example you call yourself special race but nobody else in the world consider you special.
> Now As you are created g-d, but no body knows who the hell you are, who follow the g-d and then who gd is.
> Now You appear from somewhere After 4 thousands years and created israel even Jacob PBUH didn't claim it actually who got the title of Israel, not the sinner yahuda.
> 
> Now And If you are comparing gd to GOD then again you are making fool to gd and yourself because you don't believe in Ala but in yourself.
> 
> Please follow my signature comments. It is written for jew only. Just look at your past and calculate that how many time you through from different type of difficult time.
> 
> When I look at Your history I felt like people are treating you, like kicking/pushing you around how un respectful life you people are leading but not learning.
> 
> The idea you people are chasing is a flop idea please give up 3/4 thousands years too much to learns. I am only trying to help you out and these things you can't see through your history, I am trying to show you.
> 
> Just learn from your history that how many time in history you people kicked around by others.
Click to expand...


That's a nice big salad of words, but here's the problem - did You manage to contradict anything I've said?
Please, show me one country in the middle east as developed and free as Israel.

Let's see You for once use actual facts to backup all that mindless drivel.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides which, Muslims are going against their own religion because even the Quran says that Israel belongs to the people of Moses.  Several honest Muslim Quranic scholars have attested to this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Quran most definitely does NOT at all say that Israel belongs to the people of Moses.
> Moses was an Egyptian, and the Hebrew tribes have ZERO evidence of having anything to do with The Land of Canaan!
> Why do you think it was called the Land of Canaan?
> That is because it has been lived in and populated by mostly Canaanites, for over 8000 years!
> 
> The Canaanites did allow many others to live there as well, such as the Akkadians, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Urites, etc., but all those people STILL live there.  They never left and had lived there thousands of years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.  But clearly anyone who knows any history at all knows the Hebrew tribes did not belong there.
> They were extremely unpopular invaders, and the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Romans all defeated and kicked the Hebrew out.
> So the Hebrew only ruled there for a few hundred years at most.
> And according to Judaism, Jews are not even supposed to be there now.
> They are NOT supposed to go to Jerusalem until the Messiah comes and creates Zion for them some place on Earth.
Click to expand...


Zero evidence? Aside from the fact that Hebrew was the spoken language of Canaan?
And no, Canaanites didn't live there for 8000 years, much like the Philistines they came from other places to a land where each mountain and city bore a Hebrew name.

When Yehoshuah bin-Nun conquered the land back as was promised to Abraham our father,
people were still speaking Hebrew, and the names of the places were still Hebrew.
Till this very day through the Arabic transliterations, it's the same names, easily recognizable for anyone who ever read the Torah in its original language, the only language in which those names have actual meaning.

The rest of that post is as easily refutable as well.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question! Let's clear some things about that statesmen ahi.
> 
> Israel was not set by UN but by the Jewish nation in which was vested the sovereignty over all of Palestine under international law, treaties.
> The UN never had any sovereignty to create any state or decide any borders.
> 
> The Jewish nation was vested with that recognition and obligation through international treaties to which the US obligated by constitution (Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2).
> 
> San Remo and Mandate recongizes those rights and sepicifically points to* re-constitution*, vesting sovereignty with no other nation, and mentioning no other beneficiary.
> The Lodge-Fish Resolution and of 1922 and Anglo-American Convention of 1924 all mention the same international obligation "as a sacred trust of civilization" to the establishment of Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, again mentioning no other nation.
> 
> All those rights were recognized in international treaties approved by the league of nations and inherited by the UN. The later had no right to vary any of them. The 1947 UN plan only demarcated the cease fire lines, and had no legal force. In reality what they voted for was the creation of another Arab state within the 22% of the land that was left for a Jewish national homeland out of the whole territory. If they voted for no Jewish country at all, the Jewish natiion would still have the rights to self-determination on the west bank of the river, and the eastern; And effectively establish sovereignty between the river and the sea, as it was already defacto a  fully functional government in the land by a decade prior to that minus what was unlawfully taken by the Hashemite Kingdom.
> 
> The Spremacy Clause of the US Constitution stats that "treaties should be the Law of the Land":
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not votes at the UN.
> Votes at the UN is a popularity contest, with bribes, threats, and a Security Counsel monopoly.
> International law in the other hand is blind justice, based on simple principles of law and justice, that are codified ahead of time, to facilitate equality of application.
> So it is not a popularity contest to claim Israel is illegitimate.
> It is the basic rights of the native Palestinian people to have self determination and the return of their stolen homes.
> 
> Israel does not exist by law, justice, or even majority rule, but by might makes right.
> Which is not a currently recognized principle, and instead is one universally denied and reviled.
> The only hope for the continued existence of Israel is to somehow make amends, either allow the right of return, or make compensation or exchange of the land illegally taken from Palestinian natives in 1948.
> There is no legal way those illegally displaced in 1948 can be ignored.
Click to expand...


The same people who demand Israel follow international law,
deny it the moment they understand it backs Israel to the fullest extent.

Then they'll use big words like "justice" and "rights"
to convince us how international law should NOT be followed in case of Israel.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting piece of foreign intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is interesting how the same people who demand an Arab state, have no problem with UN resolutions and Arabian kings infringing on sovereignty of nations, but will twist and deny  international law the moment it recognizes the rights of the Jewish nation to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not votes at the UN.
> Votes at the UN is a popularity contest, with bribes, threats, and a Security Counsel monopoly.
> International law in the other hand is blind justice, based on simple principles of law and justice, that are codified ahead of time, to facilitate equality of application.
> So it is not a popularity contest to claim Israel is illegitimate.
> It is the basic rights of the native Palestinian people to have self determination and the return of their stolen homes.
> 
> Israel does not exist by law, justice, or even majority rule, but by might makes right.
> Which is not a currently recognized principle, and instead is one universally denied and reviled.
> The only hope for the continued existence of Israel is to somehow make amends, either allow the right of return, or make compensation or exchange of the land illegally taken from Palestinian natives in 1948.
> There is no legal way those illegally displaced in 1948 can be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same people who demand Israel follow international law,
> deny it the moment they understand it backs Israel to the fullest extent.
> 
> Then they'll use big words like "justice" and "rights"
> to convince us how international law should NOT be followed in case of Israel.
Click to expand...

Because those international laws made by you,jew and yours supporter at the time because rest of the world under occupation and this very good reason you accepted UN order in 1949 because rest of the world was not the UN member.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is israeli who are denying the international laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly you people are you people create lies and then propagate it like a truth means make fool others and yourself. For example you call yourself special race but nobody else in the world consider you special.
> Now As you are created g-d, but no body knows who the hell you are, who follow the g-d and then who gd is.
> Now You appear from somewhere After 4 thousands years and created israel even Jacob PBUH didn't claim it actually who got the title of Israel, not the sinner yahuda.
> 
> Now And If you are comparing gd to GOD then again you are making fool to gd and yourself because you don't believe in Ala but in yourself.
> 
> Please follow my signature comments. It is written for jew only. Just look at your past and calculate that how many time you through from different type of difficult time.
> 
> When I look at Your history I felt like people are treating you, like kicking/pushing you around how un respectful life you people are leading but not learning.
> 
> The idea you people are chasing is a flop idea please give up 3/4 thousands years too much to learns. I am only trying to help you out and these things you can't see through your history, I am trying to show you.
> 
> Just learn from your history that how many time in history you people kicked around by others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a nice big salad of words, but here's the problem - did You manage to contradict anything I've said?
> Please, show me one country in the middle east as developed and free as Israel.
> 
> Let's see You for once use actual facts to backup all that mindless drivel.
Click to expand...

Can you run Israel as a country the way UAE is? even though its a Monarchy but it is more open than any country in the world and Israel can not match with it.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> 
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides which, Muslims are going against their own religion because even the Quran says that Israel belongs to the people of Moses.  Several honest Muslim Quranic scholars have attested to this fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Quran most definitely does NOT at all say that Israel belongs to the people of Moses.
> Moses was an Egyptian, and the Hebrew tribes have ZERO evidence of having anything to do with The Land of Canaan!
> Why do you think it was called the Land of Canaan?
> That is because it has been lived in and populated by mostly Canaanites, for over 8000 years!
> 
> The Canaanites did allow many others to live there as well, such as the Akkadians, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Urites, etc., but all those people STILL live there.  They never left and had lived there thousands of years before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.  But clearly anyone who knows any history at all knows the Hebrew tribes did not belong there.
> They were extremely unpopular invaders, and the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Romans all defeated and kicked the Hebrew out.
> So the Hebrew only ruled there for a few hundred years at most.
> And according to Judaism, Jews are not even supposed to be there now.
> They are NOT supposed to go to Jerusalem until the Messiah comes and creates Zion for them some place on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zero evidence? Aside from the fact that Hebrew was the spoken language of Canaan?
> And no, Canaanites didn't live there for 8000 years, much like the Philistines they came from other places to a land where each mountain and city bore a Hebrew name.
> 
> When Yehoshuah bin-Nun conquered the land back as was promised to Abraham our father,
> people were still speaking Hebrew, and the names of the places were still Hebrew.
> Till this very day through the Arabic transliterations, it's the same names, easily recognizable for anyone who ever read the Torah in its original language, the only language in which those names have actual meaning.
> 
> The rest of that post is as easily refutable as well.
Click to expand...

You people are very good to speak lies, aren't you?
"(Canaan, area variously defined in historical and biblical literature, but always centred on Palestine. Its original *pre*-Israelite inhabitants were called Canaanites. The names Canaan and Canaanite occur in cuneiform, Egyptian, and Phoenician writings from about the 15th century bc as well as in the Old Testament.
*Canaan | historical region, Middle East | Britannica.com*

Canaan | historical region, Middle East)"


----------



## Rehmani

Just please tell me that you people ever establish any thing in history by yourself or on your own shoulders.


----------



## The Original Tree

Cool





Coyote said:


> *This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.*
> 
> *The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".  *
> 
> *I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.*
> 
> *The topic is:  The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.  *


----------



## The Original Tree

No matter how many arguments anyone presents no one can change the fact that Transjordan “across the Jordan” is The East Bank of The Jordan River, and that is the declared homeland of The Palestinians.

They don’t belong in The West Bank.


----------



## Rehmani

Don't you people always displaced, pushed and kicked around by others Or under slaves, Or under occupation, Or under mercy status.


----------



## The Original Tree

Rehmani said:


> Don't you people always displaced, pushed and kicked around by others Or under slaves, Or under occupation, Or under mercy status.


English please?  Fragmented thoughts and sentences are hard to understand.


----------



## The Original Tree

Actually Israel or The Promised Land and it’s borders were defined for Abraham thousands of years ago.

Moses was a Hebrew, and His People lived in The Promised Land long before they became captives and were migrated to Egypt.

Moses returned The Hebrews to Land they had already inhabited for thousands of years.

The Hebrews have inhabited The Promised Land for Thousands of Years and survived The Babylonian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Egyptian Empire and Roman Empire.

That is how long they have been in what is called Israel today.


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> No matter how many arguments anyone presents no one can change the fact that Transjordan “across the Jordan” is The East Bank of The Jordan River, and that is the declared homeland of The Palestinians.
> 
> They don’t belong in The West Bank.


This can not be correct as we all know that its a desert country and people always lived around sea as a fisherman and this is very good reason this area always popular among the empires from east Persian/Asian and from the west Roman/European.
"(Canaan, area variously defined in historical and biblical literature, but always centred on Palestine. Its original *pre*-Israelite inhabitants were called Canaanites. The names Canaan and Canaanite occur in cuneiform, Egyptian, and Phoenician writings from about the 15th century bc as well as in the Old Testament.
*Canaan | historical region, Middle East | Britannica.com*

https://www.britannica.com/place/Canaan-historical-region-Middle-East)"


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you people always displaced, pushed and kicked around by others Or under slaves, Or under occupation, Or under mercy status.
> 
> 
> 
> English please?  Fragmented thoughts and sentences are hard to understand.
Click to expand...

Look I don't know who you people means yours believe. 
It is very easy to understand that why the most fortunate people (jew) in human history never ever establish anything by their own instead they always dragging around either as a slave or as a country less or as a mercy of others.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Israel has a right to exist and they have the right to defend themselves.
What is really worrisome is how the Liberals are taking the side of the genocidal crackpot fanatic Islamist.
It shows that the Left doesn't have many real principles other than attainment of power.*


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> Actually Israel or The Promised Land and it’s borders were defined for Abraham thousands of years ago.
> 
> Moses was a Hebrew, and His People lived in The Promised Land long before they became captives and were migrated to Egypt.
> 
> Moses returned The Hebrews to Land they had already inhabited for thousands of years.
> 
> The Hebrews have inhabited The Promised Land for Thousands of Years and survived The Babylonian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Egyptian Empire and Roman Empire.
> 
> That is how long they have been in what is called Israel today.


1).Just 4000 years ago. And people Arab pagan were living there as Loot PBUH is a good example as he left Abraham PBUH and lived with Arab pagan.
2) What is the guaranty that Moses PBUH promised to them because He PBUH never enter in Holly land instead Moses PBUH disappear in mountain because he got too old and jew gave him really hard time for 40 years in harsh desert keep testing him that if you are prophet of God show us some miracle and they keep troubling him PBUH.
I will say jew made up that Moses PBUH directed us. I will say He PBUH just got fed up and fled/disappear. I will say then those jew by accidentally end up in this area we called Holly Land.
3). Again it never be Hebrews land as they migrated from Iraqi village and again Jerusalem was not part of Abraham PBUH and family, Israel is a title which was given to Jacob PBUH but Jew never owned it because that is how jew are they don't believe in God/prophets but they only believe in themselves they preferred to called themselves jew instead Israeli. 
4). Now why they using the name of Israel because this is the only way they can fool to the world especially Muslim/Christian.
5) Ask to any Jew Rabbi that ever any Jew Prophets ever born or enter in holly Land, he will say NO.


----------



## The Original Tree

Maybe you should ask God why He favored Israel for 6,000 years and why He chose to have The Son of God to descend from heaven and be born a man yet still be God and why He came in to the world through these people to die and be resurrected for the sins of all mankind.



Rehmani said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you people always displaced, pushed and kicked around by others Or under slaves, Or under occupation, Or under mercy status.
> 
> 
> 
> English please?  Fragmented thoughts and sentences are hard to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look I don't know who you people means yours believe.
> It is very easy to understand that why the most fortunate people (jew) in human history never ever establish anything by their own instead they always dragging around either as a slave or as a country less or as a mercy of others.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rehmani

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Israel has a right to exist and they have the right to defend themselves.
> What is really worrisome is how the Liberals are taking the side of the genocidal crackpot fanatic Islamist.
> It shows that the Left doesn't have many real principles other than attainment of power.*


But its not mean keep killing others and not giving others rights by keep using fears/paranoid-ism.


----------



## The Original Tree

You are highly ignorant and uneducated.  Not one thing you wrote was true.

Why do you bother telling such lies that educated people can see right through?

It’s a waste of my time and yours.



Rehmani said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Israel or The Promised Land and it’s borders were defined for Abraham thousands of years ago.
> 
> Moses was a Hebrew, and His People lived in The Promised Land long before they became captives and were migrated to Egypt.
> 
> Moses returned The Hebrews to Land they had already inhabited for thousands of years.
> 
> The Hebrews have inhabited The Promised Land for Thousands of Years and survived The Babylonian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Egyptian Empire and Roman Empire.
> 
> That is how long they have been in what is called Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 1).Just 4000 years ago. And people Arab pagan were living there as Loot PBUH is a good example as he left Abraham PBUH and lived with Arab pagan.
> 2) What is the guaranty that Moses PBUH promised to them because He PBUH never enter in Holly land instead Moses PBUH disappear in mountain because he got too old and jew gave him really hard time for 40 years in harsh desert keep testing him that if you are prophet of God show us some miracle and they keep troubling him PBUH.
> I will say jew made up that Moses PBUH directed us. I will say He PBUH just got fed up and fled/disappear. I will say then those jew by accidentally end up in this area we called Holly Land.
> 3). Again it never be Hebrews land as they migrated from Iraqi village and again Jerusalem was not part of Abraham PBUH and family, Israel is a title which was given to Jacob PBUH but Jew never owned it because that is how jew are they don't believe in God/prophets but they only believe in themselves they preferred to called themselves jew instead Israeli.
> 4). Now why they using the name of Israel because this is the only way they can fool to the world especially Muslim/Christian.
> 5) Ask to any Jew Rabbi that ever any Jew Prophets ever born or enter in holly Land, he will say NO.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Original Tree

God blesses Israel and God Blesses America through their support of Israel and belief in Jesus The Jewish Messiah.

Yet Ishmael still rejects Jehovah, still rejects, Jesus, and still rejects God’s blessings.

Until Ishmael makes peace with Israel, Jehovah will deny them from now until The Judgment.


----------



## The Original Tree

Islam calls Jesus a prophet and he visited Jerusalem so you lie.

Jesus was God The Son of God.

And when His work was done, and his last disciple finished his work in The Book of Revelations, God warned man that there would be no more Dispensations of God’s Word to man.

He also warned man that he was never to add one more word to God’s Word nor was he ever to take one word from it.

So how does one explain The Koran being written 800 years later?

Is allah a liar, or is allah not God?



Rehmani said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I showed You one Jewish prophet who DID visit Jerusalem,
> then what does it make You?
> 
> And if I showed several...
> 
> By the way, "Holly" comes from THE Holly blessed be His Name, not from men, what You describe is fundamentally different from Judaism and Islam, the way You describe it You deserve a capital punishment in Sharia court for blasphemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> Maybe you should ask God why he favored Israel for 6,000 years and why He chose to have The Son of God to descend from heaven and be born a man yet still be God and why He came in to the world through these people to die and be resurrected for the sins of all mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you people always displaced, pushed and kicked around by others Or under slaves, Or under occupation, Or under mercy status.
> 
> 
> 
> English please?  Fragmented thoughts and sentences are hard to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look I don't know who you people means yours believe.
> It is very easy to understand that why the most fortunate people (jew) in human history never ever establish anything by their own instead they always dragging around either as a slave or as a country less or as a mercy of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




The Original Tree said:


> Maybe you should ask God why he favored Israel for 6,000 years and why He chose to have The Son of God to descend from heaven and be born a man yet still be God and why He came in to the world through these people to die and be resurrected for the sins of all mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you people always displaced, pushed and kicked around by others Or under slaves, Or under occupation, Or under mercy status.
> 
> 
> 
> English please?  Fragmented thoughts and sentences are hard to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look I don't know who you people means yours believe.
> It is very easy to understand that why the most fortunate people (jew) in human history never ever establish anything by their own instead they always dragging around either as a slave or as a country less or as a mercy of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

QUOTE="The Original Tree, post: 21972300, member: 60550"]Maybe you should ask God why he favored Israel for 6,000 years and why He chose to have The Son of God to descend from heaven and be born a man yet still be God and why He came in to the world through these people to die and be resurrected for the sins of all mankind.
Just 4000 years not 6. Sound like you don't believe that Jesus PBUH will back soon and will clear all misunderstanding around him like for example he PBUH will tell us that He PBUH never died. 
For you kind information Jesus PBUH will come as a Muslim in Al-Quran and Al-Quran already 80% proved by science and Miracle of Moon split By Mohammed PBUH is waiting for and follower of Jesus PBUH can believe in Al-Quran after verifying the split moon. 
Grave yard is waiting for Jesus PBUH just next to Mohammed PBUH for 1500 years in city of Medina in Saudi Arabia. There are already 3 person buried One Mohammed PBUH and Two His PBUH Caliphs but Grave of Jesus PBUH is waiting for Him PBUH.
For your Kind Information Mohammed PBUH appointed 4 Caliphs while only two buried with him PBUH and Jesus PBUH after second arrival. But others two Caliphs buried out side third one in median/mecca and fourth one his PBUH blood/cousin/son in law Hazrat Ali even didn't buried in Arab Hazrat Ali ask to his family that there was female camel came from east, please put my dead body on that camel and let it go and that camel disappeared in desert. 
You know why? to avoid to buried in that spot which is allocated for Jesus PBUH next Mohammed PBUH.


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> You are highly ignorant and uneducated.  Not one thing you wrote was true.
> 
> Why do you bother telling such lies that educated people can see right through?
> 
> It’s a waste of my time and yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Israel or The Promised Land and it’s borders were defined for Abraham thousands of years ago.
> 
> Moses was a Hebrew, and His People lived in The Promised Land long before they became captives and were migrated to Egypt.
> 
> Moses returned The Hebrews to Land they had already inhabited for thousands of years.
> 
> The Hebrews have inhabited The Promised Land for Thousands of Years and survived The Babylonian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Egyptian Empire and Roman Empire.
> 
> That is how long they have been in what is called Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 1).Just 4000 years ago. And people Arab pagan were living there as Loot PBUH is a good example as he left Abraham PBUH and lived with Arab pagan.
> 2) What is the guaranty that Moses PBUH promised to them because He PBUH never enter in Holly land instead Moses PBUH disappear in mountain because he got too old and jew gave him really hard time for 40 years in harsh desert keep testing him that if you are prophet of God show us some miracle and they keep troubling him PBUH.
> I will say jew made up that Moses PBUH directed us. I will say He PBUH just got fed up and fled/disappear. I will say then those jew by accidentally end up in this area we called Holly Land.
> 3). Again it never be Hebrews land as they migrated from Iraqi village and again Jerusalem was not part of Abraham PBUH and family, Israel is a title which was given to Jacob PBUH but Jew never owned it because that is how jew are they don't believe in God/prophets but they only believe in themselves they preferred to called themselves jew instead Israeli.
> 4). Now why they using the name of Israel because this is the only way they can fool to the world especially Muslim/Christian.
> 5) Ask to any Jew Rabbi that ever any Jew Prophets ever born or enter in holly Land, he will say NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

OK. Then point out what is not true?


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> Islam calls Jesus a prophet and he visited Jerusalem so you lie.
> 
> Jesus was God The Son of God.
> 
> And when His work was done, and his last disciple finished his work in The Book of Revelations, God warned man that there would be no more Dispensations of God’s Word to man.
> 
> He also warned man that he was never to add one more word to God’s Word nor was he ever to take one word from it.
> 
> So how does one explain The Koran being written 800 years later?
> 
> Is allah a liar, or is allah not God?
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you show me several then you are not jew at all. Because I have comments from a Rabi who said that not a single jew Prophet ever enter in Jerusalem.
> 
> second holly title come with prophets so please talk sensible don't confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Jeremiah, Isaiah, and most of the 55 known Prophets walked the streets and alleys of Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I couldn't let that false claim by Rehmani go by without commenting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not trying to understand to sixty fan. Exactly Sixty fan told me too.
> 
> But I said, you are not jew  and according to jew, they only believe in 6 prophets. And none of them ever visited Jerusalem and this confirmed by a Jew Rabbi.
> And don't reply as this topic is not related to what we are talking here.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


First please Quote my post and then reply.
second you are getting confused. When I am saying not a single Prophet of Jews ever born/enter in Jerusalem.
Jesus PBUH is the only Prophet who born in Jerusalem and coming soon.


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> God blesses Israel and God Blesses America through their support of Israel and belief in Jesus The Jewish Messiah.
> 
> Yet Ishmael still rejects Jehovah, still rejects, Jesus, and still rejects God’s blessings.
> 
> Until Ishmael makes peace with Israel, Jehovah will deny them from now until The Judgment.



Who is Ishmael PBUH?
Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?


----------



## The Original Tree

Rehmani said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> God blesses Israel and God Blesses America through their support of Israel and belief in Jesus The Jewish Messiah.
> 
> Yet Ishmael still rejects Jehovah, still rejects, Jesus, and still rejects God’s blessings.
> 
> Until Ishmael makes peace with Israel, Jehovah will deny them from now until The Judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Ishmael PBUH?
> Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
> Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
> Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?
Click to expand...

Jews believe in The Promised Messiah in the forms of Messiah Bin David (Conquering Savior) & Messiah Bin Joseph (Suffering Savior). However there are not two Messiahs coming to Earth each once.  There is only One Messiah coming twice.

Jesus The Christ the first time came as Messiah Bin Joseph when The Jews Rejected him and despised Him so that prophecy would be fulfilled.  He is coming again as Messiah Bin David.

*Bible Prophecy:* Isaiah 53:3 says, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed Him not."

*Fulfillment:* John 1:10-11 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him."
He will return in the second coming to Judge the wicked and those who worship false gods and follow false prophets and then sit upon Adam’s throne again as God With Us and rule the World.

Jesus was rejected by some Jews, but not all Jews. Many Jews are Christians, but he was rejected because they expected Messiah Bin David to rescue them from The Oppression of The Roman Empire, but it was Messiah Bin Jospeh who came first to die for our sins and is coming again to judge sins and to rule Earth as Messiah Bin David.

From Isaiah, just one of many prophecies about the Messiah:

(Isaiah 7:14, LXX)[19]

Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Emmanuel.[20]

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder:  and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus | Jesus Film Project

Jews believe in Jehovah GOD.

Christians believe in Jehovah GOD.

God calls all people who follow Him, His Children.

Christians are those people Who Worship and Follow God who believe that God The Father Fulfilled His Promise to send God The Son to Earth as Emanuel God with us to die for our sins and be resurrected to show He was God and had No Sin in Him.  Christians to honor Christ named themselves as Christians.


----------



## Shusha

Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.


Indeed, take it to the religion forum.


----------



## The Original Tree

Shusha said:


> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.


Jews believe in the Messiah, correct?
Maybe watering it down for you, makes it easier.  Christians would have a far better understanding of what Jews believe than an Arab Muslim who is hostile towards both Jews and Christians.


----------



## The Original Tree

*Discussions of Israel & the so called Palestinian Homeland are religious in nature and can be discussed in terms of spiritual warfare and ancient animosities between followers of Jehovah God, and allah who is a rival god with a little “g” to Islam. 

 allah is false god and fallen angel, one who would be like God, and is not, one who would sit upon the throne of God but cannot.  One who would sit upon The Mount of The Congregation, but cannot ascend to Heaven.

The entire situation can be explained as a case of sibling rivalry with Ishmael being jealous of his half brother Israel and hating him for being given Abraham’s birthright and The Promised Land.



P F Tinmore said:





Shusha said:



			Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, take it to the religion forum.
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.


I don't who you are. Please reply.
Who is Ishmael PBUH?
Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?
Do jews believe in 6 Prophets or 14..


----------



## The Original Tree

*Your questions were answered.  Ishmael is Abraham’s other son whom he had with The Egyptian handmaiden to Sarah.  

Ishmael is the Father of all Arabs but who was not heir to Abraham’s Inheritance like Ishmael’s half brother Israel was through Sarah.

Ishmael hates Israel and is jealous of him for being given the blessing of Abraham and for being given The Promise Land and for being given The Messiah and Jehovah’s Blessing.

But all those blessings are available for anyone who accepts Jehovah’s Son, God The Son, Jesus, Messiah Bin Joseph, Messiah Bin David, The Prince of Peace, therefore there is no real reason to be jealous or hateful of The Jews.

Salvation is for all. Jew, Gentile, Arab and all others.



Rehmani said:





Shusha said:



			Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
		
Click to expand...

I don't who you are. Please reply.
Who is Ishmael PBUH?
Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?
Do jews believe in 6 Prophets or 14..
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> God blesses Israel and God Blesses America through their support of Israel and belief in Jesus The Jewish Messiah.
> 
> Yet Ishmael still rejects Jehovah, still rejects, Jesus, and still rejects God’s blessings.
> 
> Until Ishmael makes peace with Israel, Jehovah will deny them from now until The Judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Ishmael PBUH?
> Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
> Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
> Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews believe in The Promised Messiah in the forms of Messiah Bin David (Conquering Savior) & Messiah Bin Joseph (Suffering Savior). However there are not two Messiahs coming to Earth each once.  There is only One Messiah coming twice.
> 
> Jesus The Christ the first time came as Messiah Bin Joseph when The Jews Rejected him and despised Him so that prophecy would be fulfilled.  He is coming again as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> *Bible Prophecy:* Isaiah 53:3 says, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed Him not."
> 
> *Fulfillment:* John 1:10-11 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him."
> He will return in the second coming to Judge the wicked and those who worship false gods and follow false prophets and then sit upon Adam’s throne again as God With Us and rule the World.
> 
> Jesus was rejected by some Jews, but not all Jews. Many Jews are Christians, but he was rejected because they expected Messiah Bin David to rescue them from The Oppression of The Roman Empire, but it was Messiah Bin Jospeh who came first to die for our sins and is coming again to judge sins and to rule Earth as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> From Isaiah, just one of many prophecies about the Messiah:
> 
> (Isaiah 7:14, LXX)[19]
> 
> Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Emmanuel.[20]
> 
> 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder:  and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
> 
> 7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
> 
> 55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus | Jesus Film Project
> 
> Jews believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> Christians believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> God calls all people who follow Him, His Children.
> 
> Christians are those people Who Worship and Follow God who believe that God The Father Fulfilled His Promise to send God The Son to Earth as Emanuel God with us to die for our sins and be resurrected to show He was God and had No Sin in Him.  Christians to honor Christ named themselves as Christians.
Click to expand...

This is my post From religion and ethics.

I will request to christian specially because we are waiting for the Jesus PBUH and generally to all religion that please check out the Miracle of MOon by Mohammed PBUH as it is also mentioned in Al-Quran too. As science already approved Al-Quran 80%. You can view these miracle on this site (Secrets of Quran Miracles).

According to Islamic belief Jesus PBUH will come as a Muslim and He pbuh will be descend in Damascus, Syria. Where Mehdi Aleysalam will receive Jesus PBUH. Then he PBUH will kill Dajjal the false Masyha. Immediate defeating Dajjal Agog Magog will be released. According to Islamic Scholars Agog Magog will be 1000 time more than mankind population means one human per 1000 Agog Magog will come and clean whole world. Accept those who will be with Jesus PBUH at Mount Toor. Then Jesus PBUH will rule the world for about 40 years. Jesus PBUH will be buried next to Mohammed PBUH in city of Medina in Saudi Arabia, a Grave specially awaiting for him PBUH last 1500 years.
Out 4 Caliphs only first two caliphs buried with Mohammed PBUH and Jesus PBUH. And last two Caliphs buried out side of that tomb, one in city of Medina/Mecca and Second Hazrat Ali the first blood of Mohammed PBUH even left Arab to avoid the conflict or protect the Grave of Jesus PBUH. 
There is a famous but true story attached with it. At the time of Hazrat Ali death the last Caliph asked to his family that there was female camel came from the east, please put my dead body on it and let it go, then this female camel disappeared in desert.


----------



## Shusha

The Original Tree said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews believe in the Messiah, correct?
> Maybe watering it down for you, makes it easier.  Christians would have a far better understanding of what Jews believe than an Arab Muslim who is hostile towards both Jews and Christians.
Click to expand...


Not your version of a Messiah. 

Your condescension is disgusting. 

Your Christian hostility towards Jewish belief is just as ugly as Islam's hostility towards Jewish belief. 

Neither Muslims nor Christians understand Jewish belief. Your faith colours your worldview.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Original Tree said:


> Discussions of Israel & the so called Palestinian Homeland are religious in nature and can be discussed in terms of spiritual warfare and ancient animosities between followers of Jehovah God, and allah who is a god with a little “g” to Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, take it to the religion forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The conflict is about colonialism not religion.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> God blesses Israel and God Blesses America through their support of Israel and belief in Jesus The Jewish Messiah.
> 
> Yet Ishmael still rejects Jehovah, still rejects, Jesus, and still rejects God’s blessings.
> 
> Until Ishmael makes peace with Israel, Jehovah will deny them from now until The Judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Ishmael PBUH?
> Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
> Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
> Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews believe in The Promised Messiah in the forms of Messiah Bin David (Conquering Savior) & Messiah Bin Joseph (Suffering Savior). However there are not two Messiahs coming to Earth each once.  There is only One Messiah coming twice.
> 
> Jesus The Christ the first time came as Messiah Bin Joseph when The Jews Rejected him and despised Him so that prophecy would be fulfilled.  He is coming again as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> *Bible Prophecy:* Isaiah 53:3 says, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed Him not."
> 
> *Fulfillment:* John 1:10-11 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him."
> He will return in the second coming to Judge the wicked and those who worship false gods and follow false prophets and then sit upon Adam’s throne again as God With Us and rule the World.
> 
> Jesus was rejected by some Jews, but not all Jews. Many Jews are Christians, but he was rejected because they expected Messiah Bin David to rescue them from The Oppression of The Roman Empire, but it was Messiah Bin Jospeh who came first to die for our sins and is coming again to judge sins and to rule Earth as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> From Isaiah, just one of many prophecies about the Messiah:
> 
> (Isaiah 7:14, LXX)[19]
> 
> Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Emmanuel.[20]
> 
> 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder:  and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
> 
> 7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
> 
> 55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus | Jesus Film Project
> 
> Jews believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> Christians believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> God calls all people who follow Him, His Children.
> 
> Christians are those people Who Worship and Follow God who believe that God The Father Fulfilled His Promise to send God The Son to Earth as Emanuel God with us to die for our sins and be resurrected to show He was God and had No Sin in Him.  Christians to honor Christ named themselves as Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is my post From religion and ethics.
> 
> I will request to christian specially because we are waiting for the Jesus PBUH and generally to all religion that please check out the Miracle of MOon by Mohammed PBUH as it is also mentioned in Al-Quran too. As science already approved Al-Quran 80%. You can view these miracle on this site (Secrets of Quran Miracles).
> 
> According to Islamic belief Jesus PBUH will come as a Muslim and He pbuh will be descend in Damascus, Syria. Where Mehdi Aleysalam will receive Jesus PBUH. Then he PBUH will kill Dajjal the false Masyha. Immediate defeating Dajjal Agog Magog will be released. According to Islamic Scholars Agog Magog will be 1000 time more than mankind population means one human per 1000 Agog Magog will come and clean whole world. Accept those who will be with Jesus PBUH at Mount Toor. Then Jesus PBUH will rule the world for about 40 years. Jesus PBUH will be buried next to Mohammed PBUH in city of Medina in Saudi Arabia, a Grave specially awaiting for him PBUH last 1500 years.
> Out 4 Caliphs only first two caliphs buried with Mohammed PBUH and Jesus PBUH. And last two Caliphs buried out side of that tomb, one in city of Medina/Mecca and Second Hazrat Ali the first blood of Mohammed PBUH even left Arab to avoid the conflict or protect the Grave of Jesus PBUH.
> There is a famous but true story attached with it. At the time of Hazrat Ali death the last Caliph asked to his family that there was female camel came from the east, please put my dead body on it and let it go, then this female camel disappeared in desert.
Click to expand...


The idea that the world needs to be "cleaned" of (certain) humans is a vile and disgusting theology.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discussions of Israel & the so called Palestinian Homeland are religious in nature and can be discussed in terms of spiritual warfare and ancient animosities between followers of Jehovah God, and allah who is a god with a little “g” to Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, take it to the religion forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The conflict is about colonialism not religion.
Click to expand...


The conflict is about self determination. A concept which should be applied equally to both peoples.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discussions of Israel & the so called Palestinian Homeland are religious in nature and can be discussed in terms of spiritual warfare and ancient animosities between followers of Jehovah God, and allah who is a god with a little “g” to Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, take it to the religion forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The conflict is about colonialism not religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conflict is about self determination. A concept which should be applied equally to both peoples.
Click to expand...

Both peoples like the natives and the foreign settlers?


----------



## The Original Tree

*The conflict is about Sibling rivalry and Ishmael wanting Israel’s inheritance.



P F Tinmore said:





Shusha said:





P F Tinmore said:





The Original Tree said:



			Discussions of Israel & the so called Palestinian Homeland are religious in nature and can be discussed in terms of spiritual warfare and ancient animosities between followers of Jehovah God, and allah who is a god with a little “g” to Islam.



P F Tinmore said:





Shusha said:



			Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, take it to the religion forum.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...

The conflict is about colonialism not religion.
		
Click to expand...


The conflict is about self determination. A concept which should be applied equally to both peoples.
		
Click to expand...

Both peoples like the natives and the foreign settlers?
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## The Original Tree

*Islam unfortunately is a lie.  They lie about Jesus even.

Why would Jesus who founded Christianity come back to destroy All Christians and all Jews to impose False Islam?

The Koran is a false book and violated God’s command not to add to God’s Word.

Muhammad failed God’s test for being a Prophet of God, so Muhammad is a false prophet who is leading mankind away from Salvation and truth.

Christ Himself said He who denies The Father Denies Me, For I and The Father are One.

Islam denies Christ as God The Son of God.

No man comes to The Father but Through Christ Jesus.

The Old Testament Promised Him, The New Testament Delivered Him, and The Koran denies Him.

Islam hates Israel, because Islam seeks Israel’s birthright, and the entire conflict can be explained in that context.



Shusha said:





Rehmani said:





The Original Tree said:





Rehmani said:





The Original Tree said:



			God blesses Israel and God Blesses America through their support of Israel and belief in Jesus The Jewish Messiah.

Yet Ishmael still rejects Jehovah, still rejects, Jesus, and still rejects God’s blessings.

Until Ishmael makes peace with Israel, Jehovah will deny them from now until The Judgment.
		
Click to expand...


Who is Ishmael PBUH?
Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?
		
Click to expand...

Jews believe in The Promised Messiah in the forms of Messiah Bin David (Conquering Savior) & Messiah Bin Joseph (Suffering Savior). However there are not two Messiahs coming to Earth each once.  There is only One Messiah coming twice.

Jesus The Christ the first time came as Messiah Bin Joseph when The Jews Rejected him and despised Him so that prophecy would be fulfilled.  He is coming again as Messiah Bin David.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bible Prophecy: Isaiah 53:3 says, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed Him not."*
> 
> *Fulfillment: John 1:10-11 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him."*
> *He will return in the second coming to Judge the wicked and those who worship false gods and follow false prophets and then sit upon Adam’s throne again as God With Us and rule the World.
> 
> Jesus was rejected by some Jews, but not all Jews. Many Jews are Christians, but he was rejected because they expected Messiah Bin David to rescue them from The Oppression of The Roman Empire, but it was Messiah Bin Jospeh who came first to die for our sins and is coming again to judge sins and to rule Earth as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> From Isaiah, just one of many prophecies about the Messiah:
> 
> (Isaiah 7:14, LXX)[19]
> 
> Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Emmanuel.[20]
> 
> 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder:  and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
> 
> 7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
> *
> *55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus | Jesus Film Project*
> *
> Jews believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> Christians believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> God calls all people who follow Him, His Children.
> 
> Christians are those people Who Worship and Follow God who believe that God The Father Fulfilled His Promise to send God The Son to Earth as Emanuel God with us to die for our sins and be resurrected to show He was God and had No Sin in Him.  Christians to honor Christ named themselves as Christians.*
> 
> 
> 
> *This is my post From religion and ethics.
> 
> I will request to christian specially because we are waiting for the Jesus PBUH and generally to all religion that please check out the Miracle of MOon by Mohammed PBUH as it is also mentioned in Al-Quran too. As science already approved Al-Quran 80%. You can view these miracle on this site (Secrets of Quran Miracles).
> 
> According to Islamic belief Jesus PBUH will come as a Muslim and He pbuh will be descend in Damascus, Syria. Where Mehdi Aleysalam will receive Jesus PBUH. Then he PBUH will kill Dajjal the false Masyha. Immediate defeating Dajjal Agog Magog will be released. According to Islamic Scholars Agog Magog will be 1000 time more than mankind population means one human per 1000 Agog Magog will come and clean whole world. Accept those who will be with Jesus PBUH at Mount Toor. Then Jesus PBUH will rule the world for about 40 years. Jesus PBUH will be buried next to Mohammed PBUH in city of Medina in Saudi Arabia, a Grave specially awaiting for him PBUH last 1500 years.
> Out 4 Caliphs only first two caliphs buried with Mohammed PBUH and Jesus PBUH. And last two Caliphs buried out side of that tomb, one in city of Medina/Mecca and Second Hazrat Ali the first blood of Mohammed PBUH even left Arab to avoid the conflict or protect the Grave of Jesus PBUH.
> There is a famous but true story attached with it. At the time of Hazrat Ali death the last Caliph asked to his family that there was female camel came from the east, please put my dead body on it and let it go, then this female camel disappeared in desert.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The idea that the world needs to be "cleaned" of (certain) humans is a vile and disgusting theology.*
Click to expand...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Discussions of Israel & the so called Palestinian Homeland are religious in nature and can be discussed in terms of spiritual warfare and ancient animosities between followers of Jehovah God, and allah who is a god with a little “g” to Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, take it to the religion forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The conflict is about colonialism not religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conflict is about self determination. A concept which should be applied equally to both peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both peoples like the natives and the foreign settlers?
Click to expand...


2 years of presence in a land doesn't make one into a "native".
On the other hand, tell me what does the word* re-constitute* mean?


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> 
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly you people are you people create lies and then propagate it like a truth means make fool others and yourself. For example you call yourself special race but nobody else in the world consider you special.
> Now As you are created g-d, but no body knows who the hell you are, who follow the g-d and then who gd is.
> Now You appear from somewhere After 4 thousands years and created israel even Jacob PBUH didn't claim it actually who got the title of Israel, not the sinner yahuda.
> 
> Now And If you are comparing gd to GOD then again you are making fool to gd and yourself because you don't believe in Ala but in yourself.
> 
> Please follow my signature comments. It is written for jew only. Just look at your past and calculate that how many time you through from different type of difficult time.
> 
> When I look at Your history I felt like people are treating you, like kicking/pushing you around how un respectful life you people are leading but not learning.
> 
> The idea you people are chasing is a flop idea please give up 3/4 thousands years too much to learns. I am only trying to help you out and these things you can't see through your history, I am trying to show you.
> 
> Just learn from your history that how many time in history you people kicked around by others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a nice big salad of words, but here's the problem - did You manage to contradict anything I've said?
> Please, show me one country in the middle east as developed and free as Israel.
> 
> Let's see You for once use actual facts to backup all that mindless drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you run Israel as a country the way UAE is? even though its a Monarchy but it is more open than any country in the world and Israel can not match with it.
Click to expand...

Temple and monarchy are all part of the package, just not the kind of monarchy You imagine, a king from the house of David will "coronate" Hashem for the world and human kings eventually bow the knee.

Until that is fulfilled, Israel ranks higher on the human development report than the UAE.

| Human Development Reports - Israel index 0.903
| Human Development Reports - UAE index 0.863


----------



## The Original Tree

The Old and New Testament colors my world view and they are The Word of God and in agreement with each other.

The Koran is not Tbe Word of God, It is a lie from allah (Satan) who hates God The Son Jesus.  Jesus is resurrected and cannot die because He Is God.

Allah is not God.  Allah is Lucifer.

It was Lucifer Satan that appeared to the false Prophet Muhammad, and it is Muhammad that Jesus will come back to Judge and defeat and send to Hell along with The Devil and False Prophet.

Hear the truth or be condemned with the deceived.



Shusha said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews believe in the Messiah, correct?
> Maybe watering it down for you, makes it easier.  Christians would have a far better understanding of what Jews believe than an Arab Muslim who is hostile towards both Jews and Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not your version of a Messiah.
> 
> Your condescension is disgusting.
> 
> Your Christian hostility towards Jewish belief is just as ugly as Islam's hostility towards Jewish belief.
> 
> Neither Muslims nor Christians understand Jewish belief. Your faith colours your worldview.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Original Tree

Rehmani said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are highly ignorant and uneducated.  Not one thing you wrote was true.
> 
> Why do you bother telling such lies that educated people can see right through?
> 
> It’s a waste of my time and yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Israel or The Promised Land and it’s borders were defined for Abraham thousands of years ago.
> 
> Moses was a Hebrew, and His People lived in The Promised Land long before they became captives and were migrated to Egypt.
> 
> Moses returned The Hebrews to Land they had already inhabited for thousands of years.
> 
> The Hebrews have inhabited The Promised Land for Thousands of Years and survived The Babylonian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Egyptian Empire and Roman Empire.
> 
> That is how long they have been in what is called Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 1).Just 4000 years ago. And people Arab pagan were living there as Loot PBUH is a good example as he left Abraham PBUH and lived with Arab pagan.
> 2) What is the guaranty that Moses PBUH promised to them because He PBUH never enter in Holly land instead Moses PBUH disappear in mountain because he got too old and jew gave him really hard time for 40 years in harsh desert keep testing him that if you are prophet of God show us some miracle and they keep troubling him PBUH.
> I will say jew made up that Moses PBUH directed us. I will say He PBUH just got fed up and fled/disappear. I will say then those jew by accidentally end up in this area we called Holly Land.
> 3). Again it never be Hebrews land as they migrated from Iraqi village and again Jerusalem was not part of Abraham PBUH and family, Israel is a title which was given to Jacob PBUH but Jew never owned it because that is how jew are they don't believe in God/prophets but they only believe in themselves they preferred to called themselves jew instead Israeli.
> 4). Now why they using the name of Israel because this is the only way they can fool to the world especially Muslim/Christian.
> 5) Ask to any Jew Rabbi that ever any Jew Prophets ever born or enter in holly Land, he will say NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK. Then point out what is not true?
Click to expand...

*Jesus is not a Muslim.  He is God With Us, Emanuel.  He is The Lamb of God, Messiah Bin Joseph who suffered for his people, was crucified, yet because He was God, could have at any time commanded Millions of Angels to stop The Crucifixion.  

He willingly offered Himself up as a payment for all Sin to Fulfill The Old Testament Scriptures Announcing His Eventual Coming.

He Willingly allowed Himself to experience Death, then by his Own Will descended in to Hell, confiscated The Keys To Hell, and To Death, was Resurrected to The Glory of God, because He was God, Preached to many, appeared to many, and Ascended to Heaven where He sits at The Right Hand of God.

Jesus is not coming back as a prophet.  He is coming back as God the Son, to Rule over the World, and To Sit Upon Adam's Throne on Judgment Day to judge all those who worship false gods, and who have rejected His Salvation.

It is The False Prophet, and Antichrist who Jesus will come from Heaven to Battle and Defeat, and he will bind them along with Satan who calls himself allah and cast all of them in to Hell for 1,000 years and usher in The Millennial Reign of The Prince of Peace, Jesus, Messiah Bin David.

After the 1,000 years, Jesus will release allah, The False Prophet and Antichrist to test The World once more to see whom they will follow, only He will remain seated upon The Throne.

Only through Jesus The Christ, can all people who chose to inherit The Blessing of Abraham, and share in all God's Blessings and Promises that He gave to both Jew and Gentile through His Word, and Through His Own Actions and Covenants with His Chosen People whom He Chose to Deliver His Word to Man Through, and to Bring The Messiah Through.*


----------



## The Original Tree

*This was the area of land designated for Israel over 100 years ago agreed to all parties involved in The League of Nations, The Balfour Declaration, and by The Palestine High Commission.  Anything East of The Jordan is TransJordan and is intended to be for The so Called Palestinians.*





1920–1948




Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia


----------



## José

And this was intended to be used in mentally retarded trees that don't understand shit about the conflict in Palestine:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Israel should immediately cease to exist as a Jewish state. It should immediately become a secular state and discard any and all semblance of government sponsorship and endorsement of Judaism.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Israel should immediately cease to exist as a Jewish state. It should immediately become a secular state and discard any and all semblance of government sponsorship and endorsement of Judaism.


So, in your words.....

Israel should become a Christian State

Israel should become an Islamic State

All Jews should convert to Christianity

All Jews should convert to Islam



Which ones do you choose?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sixties Fan said:


> So, in your words.....
> 
> Israel should become a Christian State
> 
> Israel should become an Islamic State
> 
> All Jews should convert to Christianity
> 
> All Jews should convert to Islam
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones do you choose?




How you got any of this this from, "It should immediately become a secular state" is anyone's guess. I will guess drugs.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your words.....
> 
> Israel should become a Christian State
> 
> Israel should become an Islamic State
> 
> All Jews should convert to Christianity
> 
> All Jews should convert to Islam
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones do you choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you got any of this this from, "It should immediately become a secular state" is anyone's guess. I will guess drugs.
Click to expand...


I guess you've never lived in Israel.  My relatives are like Hebrew-speaking Gentiles who live in Israel, unfortunately.  Most of them do not keep Sabbath or kosher.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your words.....
> 
> Israel should become a Christian State
> 
> Israel should become an Islamic State
> 
> All Jews should convert to Christianity
> 
> All Jews should convert to Islam
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones do you choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you got any of this this from, "It should immediately become a secular state" is anyone's guess. I will guess drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you've never lived in Israel.  My relatives are like Hebrew-speaking Gentiles who live in Israel, unfortunately.  Most of them do not keep Sabbath or kosher.
Click to expand...

Great!  Then ending the jewish State and replacing it with a secular State should be a piece of cake, right?

No?

Why not?  How can this be, when you just assured me via implication that your personal anecdote is somehow good evidence that the people of israel are generally secular already? 

Perhaps.... many, or even most of them, aren't so secular?


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Israel should immediately cease to exist as a Jewish state. It should immediately become a secular state and discard any and all semblance of government sponsorship and endorsement of Judaism.



Then all Muslim states and Christian states should do the same.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> Then all Muslim states and Christian states should do the same.


I agree 100%.


----------



## The Original Tree

*Too bad you don’t understand Facts and things like History, International Law and Treaties.

Islam is responsible for the extermination of 10 Million Jews in WW I & WW II and you won’t even allow them to live in Their Promised Land as decreed in The Old Testament. 

It’s only the size of New Jersey, meanwhile Arabs and Muslims inhabit an area 3 times the size of the Untied States.

Doubtful you even know how to use a chainsaw or have ever had callouses on your hand or even have held a real job.



José said:



			And this was intended to be used in mentally retarded trees that don't understand shit about the conflict in Palestine:





Click to expand...

*


----------



## The Original Tree

*Islam does not recognize a separation of Church and State.  In fact they demand it be inseparable.

How about all these Islamic States convert to secular state and just leave Israel alone?



Sixties Fan said:





Fort Fun Indiana said:



			Israel should immediately cease to exist as a Jewish state. It should immediately become a secular state and discard any and all semblance of government sponsorship and endorsement of Judaism.
		
Click to expand...

So, in your words.....

Israel should become a Christian State

Israel should become an Islamic State

All Jews should convert to Christianity

All Jews should convert to Islam



Which ones do you choose?
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## rylah

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Israel should immediately cease to exist as a Jewish state. It should immediately become a secular state and discard any and all semblance of government sponsorship and endorsement of Judaism.


What for, it's sounds so boring and uninspiring.
Is there an example of a fully secular and successful state to begin with?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rylah said:


> Is there an example of a fully secular and successful state to begin with


Yes, the united atates ia a secular state.


----------



## rylah

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an example of a fully secular and successful state to begin with
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the united atates ia a secular state.
Click to expand...


In Whom do You put Your trust?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rylah said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an example of a fully secular and successful state to begin with
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the united atates ia a secular state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Whom do You put Your trust?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. We are speaking of the state apparatus.


----------



## rylah

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an example of a fully secular and successful state to begin with
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the united atates ia a secular state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Whom do You put Your trust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant. We are speaking of the state apparatus.
Click to expand...


Ok, what do Your congressmen and congresswomen swear upon?
How do You inaugurate a president?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rylah said:


> Ok, what do Your congressmen and congresswomen swear upon?


Anything they want. The state does not decide.

You're not going to put words in a certain order and suddenly turn the United States into a country with a state religion. So stop wasting your time.


----------



## rylah

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, what do Your congressmen and congresswomen swear upon?
> 
> 
> 
> Anything they want. The state does not decide.
> 
> You're not going to put words in a certain order and suddenly turn the United States into a country with a state religion. So stop wasting your time.
Click to expand...


I merely asked simple questions, and You've been playing the scared duck ever since.
Meantime the cash You use mention G-d, and Your politicians swear on books they deem holy.
Maybe I've missed something, but I didn't see our PM's making such a bombastic ceremony out of swearing on a Bible, or printing every banknote mentioning G-d, I'm not sure even our ancient Hebrew coins mentioned G-d.

Could it be that America in certain aspects is much more religious  than Israel ever was?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rylah said:


> I merely asked simple questions,


And I directly answered them. Your MO is not complicated. Uark weaving some mysterious argument only to be revealed later. You are trying to imply that the United States is not a secular State. And you are 100% wrong.


----------



## rylah

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely asked simple questions,
> 
> 
> 
> And I directly answered them. Your MO is not complicated. Uark weaving some mysterious argument only to be revealed later. You are trying to imply that the United States is not a secular State. And you are 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

Just to see how You're blindly religious about secularism makes me giggle.
And You imply that You've proven that America is a fully secular state.

Who bless America?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rylah said:


> And You imply that You've proven that America is a fully secular state.


No liar, I only stated that i answered your questions. And i stated that America is a secular state. I did not state or imply that i have proven in this thread that this is so. This is a shameless lie by , I gotta say, a pretty amateurish little attack poodle troll.


----------



## rylah

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And You imply that You've proven that America is a fully secular state.
> 
> 
> 
> No liar, I only stated that i answered your questions. And i stated that America is a secular state. I did not state or imply that i have proven in this thread that this is so. This is a shameless lie by , I gotta say, a pretty amateurish little attack poodle troll.
Click to expand...

Why are You getting so stressed?
Those questions were rational, You may not like them,
but that merely magnifies the ironic display of my point, America is not a good example of a fully secular state.

China maybe, but it's a whole argument in itself.


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then all Muslim states and Christian states should do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%.
Click to expand...


They can go first.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is super fun. A Muslim and a Christian debating what Jews believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews believe in the Messiah, correct?
> Maybe watering it down for you, makes it easier.  Christians would have a far better understanding of what Jews believe than an Arab Muslim who is hostile towards both Jews and Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not your version of a Messiah.
> Your condescension is disgusting.
> Your Christian hostility towards Jewish belief is just as ugly as Islam's hostility towards Jewish belief.
> Neither Muslims nor Christians understand Jewish belief. Your faith colours your worldview.
Click to expand...


But jewish are very funny in their own belief and most of the time hostile among themselves/others.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> God blesses Israel and God Blesses America through their support of Israel and belief in Jesus The Jewish Messiah.
> 
> Yet Ishmael still rejects Jehovah, still rejects, Jesus, and still rejects God’s blessings.
> 
> Until Ishmael makes peace with Israel, Jehovah will deny them from now until The Judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Ishmael PBUH?
> Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
> Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
> Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews believe in The Promised Messiah in the forms of Messiah Bin David (Conquering Savior) & Messiah Bin Joseph (Suffering Savior). However there are not two Messiahs coming to Earth each once.  There is only One Messiah coming twice.
> 
> Jesus The Christ the first time came as Messiah Bin Joseph when The Jews Rejected him and despised Him so that prophecy would be fulfilled.  He is coming again as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> *Bible Prophecy:* Isaiah 53:3 says, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed Him not."
> 
> *Fulfillment:* John 1:10-11 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him."
> He will return in the second coming to Judge the wicked and those who worship false gods and follow false prophets and then sit upon Adam’s throne again as God With Us and rule the World.
> 
> Jesus was rejected by some Jews, but not all Jews. Many Jews are Christians, but he was rejected because they expected Messiah Bin David to rescue them from The Oppression of The Roman Empire, but it was Messiah Bin Jospeh who came first to die for our sins and is coming again to judge sins and to rule Earth as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> From Isaiah, just one of many prophecies about the Messiah:
> 
> (Isaiah 7:14, LXX)[19]
> 
> Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Emmanuel.[20]
> 
> 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder:  and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
> 
> 7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
> 
> 55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus | Jesus Film Project
> 
> Jews believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> Christians believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> God calls all people who follow Him, His Children.
> 
> Christians are those people Who Worship and Follow God who believe that God The Father Fulfilled His Promise to send God The Son to Earth as Emanuel God with us to die for our sins and be resurrected to show He was God and had No Sin in Him.  Christians to honor Christ named themselves as Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is my post From religion and ethics.
> 
> I will request to christian specially because we are waiting for the Jesus PBUH and generally to all religion that please check out the Miracle of MOon by Mohammed PBUH as it is also mentioned in Al-Quran too. As science already approved Al-Quran 80%. You can view these miracle on this site (Secrets of Quran Miracles).
> 
> According to Islamic belief Jesus PBUH will come as a Muslim and He pbuh will be descend in Damascus, Syria. Where Mehdi Aleysalam will receive Jesus PBUH. Then he PBUH will kill Dajjal the false Masyha. Immediate defeating Dajjal Agog Magog will be released. According to Islamic Scholars Agog Magog will be 1000 time more than mankind population means one human per 1000 Agog Magog will come and clean whole world. Accept those who will be with Jesus PBUH at Mount Toor. Then Jesus PBUH will rule the world for about 40 years. Jesus PBUH will be buried next to Mohammed PBUH in city of Medina in Saudi Arabia, a Grave specially awaiting for him PBUH last 1500 years.
> Out 4 Caliphs only first two caliphs buried with Mohammed PBUH and Jesus PBUH. And last two Caliphs buried out side of that tomb, one in city of Medina/Mecca and Second Hazrat Ali the first blood of Mohammed PBUH even left Arab to avoid the conflict or protect the Grave of Jesus PBUH.
> There is a famous but true story attached with it. At the time of Hazrat Ali death the last Caliph asked to his family that there was female camel came from the east, please put my dead body on it and let it go, then this female camel disappeared in desert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that the world needs to be "cleaned" of (certain) humans is a vile and disgusting theology.
Click to expand...

Sound like you are the only one who is clean. When I said Agog Magog will come and clean the world means every one and every thing. 
Please don't consider only for yourself. As you people are paranoid, please avoid paranoid-ism. and live normal life with others people around the world.


----------



## Rehmani

Please correct yours information about islam/christiannity. 
Please Watch Dr, Zakir Naik videos on YouTube about Christianity and correct yours knowledge about yours own religion and I am sure after listening Dr. Zakir Naik you will never criticize Islam.  



The Original Tree said:


> *Islam unfortunately is a lie.  They lie about Jesus even.
> 
> Why would Jesus who founded Christianity come back to destroy All Christians and all Jews to impose False Islam?
> 
> The Koran is a false book and violated God’s command not to add to God’s Word.
> 
> Muhammad failed God’s test for being a Prophet of God, so Muhammad is a false prophet who is leading mankind away from Salvation and truth.
> 
> Christ Himself said He who denies The Father Denies Me, For I and The Father are One.
> 
> Islam denies Christ as God The Son of God.
> 
> No man comes to The Father but Through Christ Jesus.
> 
> The Old Testament Promised Him, The New Testament Delivered Him, and The Koran denies Him.
> 
> Islam hates Israel, because Islam seeks Israel’s birthright, and the entire conflict can be explained in that context.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> God blesses Israel and God Blesses America through their support of Israel and belief in Jesus The Jewish Messiah.
> 
> Yet Ishmael still rejects Jehovah, still rejects, Jesus, and still rejects God’s blessings.
> 
> Until Ishmael makes peace with Israel, Jehovah will deny them from now until The Judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is Ishmael PBUH?
> Do Jew believe In Jesus PBUH?
> Do Jew believe in God Or gd?
> Does The God give the name Christian to Christians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews believe in The Promised Messiah in the forms of Messiah Bin David (Conquering Savior) & Messiah Bin Joseph (Suffering Savior). However there are not two Messiahs coming to Earth each once.  There is only One Messiah coming twice.
> 
> Jesus The Christ the first time came as Messiah Bin Joseph when The Jews Rejected him and despised Him so that prophecy would be fulfilled.  He is coming again as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bible Prophecy: Isaiah 53:3 says, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed Him not."*
> 
> *Fulfillment: John 1:10-11 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him."*
> *He will return in the second coming to Judge the wicked and those who worship false gods and follow false prophets and then sit upon Adam’s throne again as God With Us and rule the World.
> 
> Jesus was rejected by some Jews, but not all Jews. Many Jews are Christians, but he was rejected because they expected Messiah Bin David to rescue them from The Oppression of The Roman Empire, but it was Messiah Bin Jospeh who came first to die for our sins and is coming again to judge sins and to rule Earth as Messiah Bin David.
> 
> From Isaiah, just one of many prophecies about the Messiah:
> 
> (Isaiah 7:14, LXX)[19]
> 
> Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Emmanuel.[20]
> 
> 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder:  and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
> 
> 7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
> *
> *55 Old Testament Prophecies about Jesus | Jesus Film Project*
> *
> Jews believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> Christians believe in Jehovah GOD.
> 
> God calls all people who follow Him, His Children.
> 
> Christians are those people Who Worship and Follow God who believe that God The Father Fulfilled His Promise to send God The Son to Earth as Emanuel God with us to die for our sins and be resurrected to show He was God and had No Sin in Him.  Christians to honor Christ named themselves as Christians.*
> 
> 
> 
> *This is my post From religion and ethics.
> 
> I will request to christian specially because we are waiting for the Jesus PBUH and generally to all religion that please check out the Miracle of MOon by Mohammed PBUH as it is also mentioned in Al-Quran too. As science already approved Al-Quran 80%. You can view these miracle on this site (Secrets of Quran Miracles).
> 
> According to Islamic belief Jesus PBUH will come as a Muslim and He pbuh will be descend in Damascus, Syria. Where Mehdi Aleysalam will receive Jesus PBUH. Then he PBUH will kill Dajjal the false Masyha. Immediate defeating Dajjal Agog Magog will be released. According to Islamic Scholars Agog Magog will be 1000 time more than mankind population means one human per 1000 Agog Magog will come and clean whole world. Accept those who will be with Jesus PBUH at Mount Toor. Then Jesus PBUH will rule the world for about 40 years. Jesus PBUH will be buried next to Mohammed PBUH in city of Medina in Saudi Arabia, a Grave specially awaiting for him PBUH last 1500 years.
> Out 4 Caliphs only first two caliphs buried with Mohammed PBUH and Jesus PBUH. And last two Caliphs buried out side of that tomb, one in city of Medina/Mecca and Second Hazrat Ali the first blood of Mohammed PBUH even left Arab to avoid the conflict or protect the Grave of Jesus PBUH.
> There is a famous but true story attached with it. At the time of Hazrat Ali death the last Caliph asked to his family that there was female camel came from the east, please put my dead body on it and let it go, then this female camel disappeared in desert.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The idea that the world needs to be "cleaned" of (certain) humans is a vile and disgusting theology.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly you people are you people create lies and then propagate it like a truth means make fool others and yourself. For example you call yourself special race but nobody else in the world consider you special.
> Now As you are created g-d, but no body knows who the hell you are, who follow the g-d and then who gd is.
> Now You appear from somewhere After 4 thousands years and created israel even Jacob PBUH didn't claim it actually who got the title of Israel, not the sinner yahuda.
> 
> Now And If you are comparing gd to GOD then again you are making fool to gd and yourself because you don't believe in Ala but in yourself.
> 
> Please follow my signature comments. It is written for jew only. Just look at your past and calculate that how many time you through from different type of difficult time.
> 
> When I look at Your history I felt like people are treating you, like kicking/pushing you around how un respectful life you people are leading but not learning.
> 
> The idea you people are chasing is a flop idea please give up 3/4 thousands years too much to learns. I am only trying to help you out and these things you can't see through your history, I am trying to show you.
> 
> Just learn from your history that how many time in history you people kicked around by others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a nice big salad of words, but here's the problem - did You manage to contradict anything I've said?
> Please, show me one country in the middle east as developed and free as Israel.
> 
> Let's see You for once use actual facts to backup all that mindless drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you run Israel as a country the way UAE is? even though its a Monarchy but it is more open than any country in the world and Israel can not match with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temple and monarchy are all part of the package, just not the kind of monarchy You imagine, a king from the house of David will "coronate" Hashem for the world and human kings eventually bow the knee.
> 
> Until that is fulfilled, Israel ranks higher on the human development report than the UAE.
> 
> | Human Development Reports - Israel index 0.903
> | Human Development Reports - UAE index 0.863
Click to expand...

Lets put this way, as you are saying israel is a super nation means they have no choice but portrait angel, because jew are invader/thief took away others land and posing democratic.


----------



## Rehmani

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying, but I'm not sure You know the meanings of those words.
> International law is treaties between sovereign states, not popular votes in the UN.
> You cannot vote out a country out of existence as much as You cannot vote it into existence.
> 
> If 2 billion Muslims all jump shout all together "Israel is illegitimate" for a year non-stop, it still exists and kicking.Tried that song for 70 years already, and all of You know how easy it is to push Israel to the edge now, and all of us know where it's going.
> 
> That thing about Messiah in Your signature, is what You're most afraid of, and what we're most expecting.
> You can build the Mountain with us, or go to war against it, but it will be built, and all those who build it with the nation of Israel will only win.
> 
> 
> 
> yours Mean, by force you are invade holly land and by force holly land will be freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly you people are you people create lies and then propagate it like a truth means make fool others and yourself. For example you call yourself special race but nobody else in the world consider you special.
> Now As you are created g-d, but no body knows who the hell you are, who follow the g-d and then who gd is.
> Now You appear from somewhere After 4 thousands years and created israel even Jacob PBUH didn't claim it actually who got the title of Israel, not the sinner yahuda.
> 
> Now And If you are comparing gd to GOD then again you are making fool to gd and yourself because you don't believe in Ala but in yourself.
> 
> Please follow my signature comments. It is written for jew only. Just look at your past and calculate that how many time you through from different type of difficult time.
> 
> When I look at Your history I felt like people are treating you, like kicking/pushing you around how un respectful life you people are leading but not learning.
> 
> The idea you people are chasing is a flop idea please give up 3/4 thousands years too much to learns. I am only trying to help you out and these things you can't see through your history, I am trying to show you.
> 
> Just learn from your history that how many time in history you people kicked around by others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a nice big salad of words, but here's the problem - did You manage to contradict anything I've said?
> Please, show me one country in the middle east as developed and free as Israel.
> 
> Let's see You for once use actual facts to backup all that mindless drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you run Israel as a country the way UAE is? even though its a Monarchy but it is more open than any country in the world and Israel can not match with it.
Click to expand...

Israel can not match with UAE because Israelis are invader/thieves.


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are highly ignorant and uneducated.  Not one thing you wrote was true.
> 
> Why do you bother telling such lies that educated people can see right through?
> 
> It’s a waste of my time and yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Israel or The Promised Land and it’s borders were defined for Abraham thousands of years ago.
> 
> Moses was a Hebrew, and His People lived in The Promised Land long before they became captives and were migrated to Egypt.
> 
> Moses returned The Hebrews to Land they had already inhabited for thousands of years.
> 
> The Hebrews have inhabited The Promised Land for Thousands of Years and survived The Babylonian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Egyptian Empire and Roman Empire.
> 
> That is how long they have been in what is called Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 1).Just 4000 years ago. And people Arab pagan were living there as Loot PBUH is a good example as he left Abraham PBUH and lived with Arab pagan.
> 2) What is the guaranty that Moses PBUH promised to them because He PBUH never enter in Holly land instead Moses PBUH disappear in mountain because he got too old and jew gave him really hard time for 40 years in harsh desert keep testing him that if you are prophet of God show us some miracle and they keep troubling him PBUH.
> I will say jew made up that Moses PBUH directed us. I will say He PBUH just got fed up and fled/disappear. I will say then those jew by accidentally end up in this area we called Holly Land.
> 3). Again it never be Hebrews land as they migrated from Iraqi village and again Jerusalem was not part of Abraham PBUH and family, Israel is a title which was given to Jacob PBUH but Jew never owned it because that is how jew are they don't believe in God/prophets but they only believe in themselves they preferred to called themselves jew instead Israeli.
> 4). Now why they using the name of Israel because this is the only way they can fool to the world especially Muslim/Christian.
> 5) Ask to any Jew Rabbi that ever any Jew Prophets ever born or enter in holly Land, he will say NO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK. Then point out what is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Jesus is not a Muslim.  He is God With Us, Emanuel.  He is The Lamb of God, Messiah Bin Joseph who suffered for his people, was crucified, yet because He was God, could have at any time commanded Millions of Angels to stop The Crucifixion.
> 
> He willingly offered Himself up as a payment for all Sin to Fulfill The Old Testament Scriptures Announcing His Eventual Coming.
> 
> He Willingly allowed Himself to experience Death, then by his Own Will descended in to Hell, confiscated The Keys To Hell, and To Death, was Resurrected to The Glory of God, because He was God, Preached to many, appeared to many, and Ascended to Heaven where He sits at The Right Hand of God.
> 
> Jesus is not coming back as a prophet.  He is coming back as God the Son, to Rule over the World, and To Sit Upon Adam's Throne on Judgment Day to judge all those who worship false gods, and who have rejected His Salvation.
> 
> It is The False Prophet, and Antichrist who Jesus will come from Heaven to Battle and Defeat, and he will bind them along with Satan who calls himself allah and cast all of them in to Hell for 1,000 years and usher in The Millennial Reign of The Prince of Peace, Jesus, Messiah Bin David.
> 
> After the 1,000 years, Jesus will release allah, The False Prophet and Antichrist to test The World once more to see whom they will follow, only He will remain seated upon The Throne.
> 
> Only through Jesus The Christ, can all people who chose to inherit The Blessing of Abraham, and share in all God's Blessings and Promises that He gave to both Jew and Gentile through His Word, and Through His Own Actions and Covenants with His Chosen People whom He Chose to Deliver His Word to Man Through, and to Bring The Messiah Through.*
Click to expand...


Please must watch Dr Zakir Naik videos on You Tube about Christianity/Islam.
Second Jesus PBUH never know about God or He PBUH never used this word called God.
Third the name Christianity is not given to you by Jesus PBUH Or God means you don't have any name in Bible.
Please Must Dr. Zakir Naik thanks.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already the most free country in the region,
> if not an exemplary case for the entire world given the circumstances.
> Certainly better than any Arab or Muslim run country You'll find.
> 
> No force is powerful to withstand G-d's decisions,
> billions of Muslims who cannot stand Israel's revival, will attest to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly you people are you people create lies and then propagate it like a truth means make fool others and yourself. For example you call yourself special race but nobody else in the world consider you special.
> Now As you are created g-d, but no body knows who the hell you are, who follow the g-d and then who gd is.
> Now You appear from somewhere After 4 thousands years and created israel even Jacob PBUH didn't claim it actually who got the title of Israel, not the sinner yahuda.
> 
> Now And If you are comparing gd to GOD then again you are making fool to gd and yourself because you don't believe in Ala but in yourself.
> 
> Please follow my signature comments. It is written for jew only. Just look at your past and calculate that how many time you through from different type of difficult time.
> 
> When I look at Your history I felt like people are treating you, like kicking/pushing you around how un respectful life you people are leading but not learning.
> 
> The idea you people are chasing is a flop idea please give up 3/4 thousands years too much to learns. I am only trying to help you out and these things you can't see through your history, I am trying to show you.
> 
> Just learn from your history that how many time in history you people kicked around by others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a nice big salad of words, but here's the problem - did You manage to contradict anything I've said?
> Please, show me one country in the middle east as developed and free as Israel.
> 
> Let's see You for once use actual facts to backup all that mindless drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you run Israel as a country the way UAE is? even though its a Monarchy but it is more open than any country in the world and Israel can not match with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel can not match with UAE because Israelis are invader/thieves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still here Rehmani?  Where is your thread in the religion community?  You have not started one, yet?
> 
> The UAE is in Arabia.  Therefore the country is made of Arabs.  What an amazingly bad example you just gave.  But then, all of your examples are made without actually thinking or knowing what you are saying.
> 
> As I said before, you are an Indian/Pakistani whose's ancestors were either forced or converted to Islam.
> 
> You know everything about the world through the eyes of Islam.
> 
> And now, you are selling  Dr, Zakir Naik, an Indian Islamic preacher who is known as a Hate Preacher.    Malaysia and India want to arrest him and he is banned in a few countries.
> 
> 
> Let me make this very clear, again.
> 
> This is a thread to discuss the Mandate of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel.
> 
> Nothing else, is to be discussed on this thread especially your endless hatred of Jews as taught to you by Islam.  That is YOUR problem, not ours, or anybody else's.
> 
> You cannot discuss the Mandate of Palestine from the end of WWI on, you have no business here.
> 
> Shall I start the thread for you in the religion community, or can you do it by yourself?
> What shall I call it?
> 
> How about this one:
> 
> " How I follow the teachings of Hate Preacher "Dr" Zakir Naik and deny Judaism and Jews "
> 
> 
> Isn't that a perfect title to what you have been doing here?
> 
> 
> Now, go start your own thread and preach, preach, preach.
Click to expand...

look mother of all poster of your mindset, As I said before its not me who change the topic its yours poster who cause problem. And you know nothing just a pretender. Only India ban Dr. Zakir Naik and definitely you don't know me.

You only paid to change truth from lies. Like Israel is not legitimate country but....
As I said I don't runaway from topic, you and yours paid posters are.
You must complain but first read the post I am replying of.

Dr. Zakir Naik is most watched cleric in any religion and on any forum.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rylah said:


> Those questions were rational,


And I answered them directly.  You ignored my answers, and asked them again.  I answered them directly again. You then ignored my answers again.  that is not rational behavior.  Listen to yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> They can go first.


Exactly.  And religion continues to poison everything....


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can go first.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And religion continues to poison everything....
Click to expand...


It's not because of religion that they can go first.

It's because of thousands of years of pograms, oppression and genocide of the Jewish people. The Jewish people should be safe first.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can go first.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And religion continues to poison everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not because of religion that they can go first.
> 
> It's because of thousands of years of pograms, oppression and genocide of the Jewish people. The Jewish people should be safe first.
Click to expand...

Then who is responsible?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> The Jewish people should be safe first.


Then they can stay safe in Israel, behind their wall. That doesn't necessitate a state religion. So I remain unmoved. The reason is still religion, even if you blame it on another religion.


----------



## Rehmani

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can go first.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And religion continues to poison everything....
Click to expand...

Just open yours heart and mind you will realized that you are getting cure.
Unless you are carrying habits/physical issues, the religion doesn't allowed.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they can stay safe in Israel, behind their wall. That doesn't necessitate a state religion. So I remain unmoved. The reason is still religion, even if you blame it on another religion.
Click to expand...

Israel is not a religious State, it is a Secular State, created by Secular Jews.

You are not moved?  So what?

Islam is basing their desire to destroy Israel on their religious beliefs and ideology.

Israel has nothing to do with what islam or Christianity want, which is the destruction of Israel, because they cannot accept the existence of a Jewish State.  It is part of their ideology.

Israel exists for the protection of the Jewish people against what has happened during the 1700 years before it reconstitution, and especially what both religions have again proven they are capable of against the Jewish people in the last 100 years.

Too many Christians and Muslims want all the Jews dead.

The Jews say  "We are alive and will continue to live"


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they can stay safe in Israel, behind their wall. That doesn't necessitate a state religion. So I remain unmoved. The reason is still religion, even if you blame it on another religion.
Click to expand...


Sure. Let's take all the states in the world with a national character and then CHANGE the rules. And make the Jews go first. 

Sounds like there are special rules for Jews.  

Why shouldn't all the Muslim states go first?  Why not the Christian states?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sixties Fan said:


> Israel is not a religious State, it is a Secular State, created by Secular Jews.


False. Israel has a state religion and its government is intertwined with jewish religious institutions.

But, if it is as secular as you (and I agree that Jews are pretty secular), then ending these practices will be easy.

Or not. I say, not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> Sure. Let's take all the states in the world with a national character and then CHANGE the rules.


I'm not changing any rules. I just wish Israel would become a true, secular state. That's all. I wish the same for for the others.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can go first.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And religion continues to poison everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not because of religion that they can go first.
> 
> It's because of thousands of years of pograms, oppression and genocide of the Jewish people. The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then who is responsible?
Click to expand...


The people perpetrating the atrocities are ALWAYS responsible.


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Let's take all the states in the world with a national character and then CHANGE the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not changing any rules. I just wish Israel would become a true, secular state. That's all. I wish the same for for the others.
Click to expand...


Yeah. You are changing the rules. Never in he history if he world has there been a rule that states must be secular. Suddenly, there is. Because of Jews. (Ironic as hell with all the Muslim states who rule under true religious law). 

Demand Islam goes first. The. I'll believe it has nothing to do the Jews and antisemitism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> Never in he history if he world has there been a rule that states must be secular


I never implied there was or is. What is this red herring nonsense...?

And you are getting defensive for no reason, I promise you. I certainly am not blaming the Jews for the actions of their belligerent, cultish neighbors. This thread is about Israel. You have me all wrong.


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never in he history if he world has there been a rule that states must be secular
> 
> 
> 
> I never implied there was or is. What is this red herring nonsense...?
> 
> And you are getting defensive for no reason, I promise you. I certainly am not blaming the Jews for the actions of their belligerent, cultish neighbors. This thread is about Israel. You have me all wrong.
Click to expand...


Good. Prove it. 

For thousands of years there has been NO call for secular states. Yet suddenly, the Jewish state is re-constituted and everyone expects secular states to be the thing. Why is that, do you think?  

Israel has every right to design its statehood for its people around the existing laws and rules and generally accepted guidelines. Calling for a change of guidelines because .... Israel ....  doesn't look good.  

I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong and demonstrate your support for the Jewish people in exercising their right to self determination.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> For thousands of years there has been NO call for secular states.


I haven't been alive that long. I am calling  for it.



Shusha said:


> Israel has every right to design its statehood for its people around the existing laws and rules and generally accepted guidelines.


Absolutely. I hope they make the right choice.


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> For thousands of years there has been NO call for secular states.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been alive that long. I am calling  for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has every right to design its statehood for its people around the existing laws and rules and generally accepted guidelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. I hope they make the right choice.
Click to expand...


They are making the right choice. Same choice everyone else got to make.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> Same choice everyone else got to make.


That doesn't make it the right choice . What a whiff that was.


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same choice everyone else got to make.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make it the right choice . What a whiff that was.
Click to expand...


But again why change the rules because ... Jews. 

Smells funny that does.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> But again why change the rules because ... Jews.


Hmm, no. Again, same "rules" in my mind for Muslims. And Christians. And all other assorted voodoo priests.


----------



## Shusha

Fine. When all the Muslim countries have become completely secular states then ask the same if Jews.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> Fine. When all the Muslim countries have become completely secular states then ask the same if Jews.


Yep, religion poisons  everything.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can go first.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And religion continues to poison everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not because of religion that they can go first.
> 
> It's because of thousands of years of pograms, oppression and genocide of the Jewish people. The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then who is responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people perpetrating the atrocities are ALWAYS responsible.
Click to expand...

please explain further.


----------



## Shusha

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. When all the Muslim countries have become completely secular states then ask the same if Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, religion poisons  everything.
Click to expand...


Not religion.

It's there right to self determination.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But again why change the rules because ... Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no. Again, same "rules" in my mind for Muslims. And Christians. And all other assorted voodoo priests.
Click to expand...

Now, if only you would make clear what you are talking about, then we can really have a discussion about it.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. When all the Muslim countries have become completely secular states then ask the same if Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, religion poisons  everything.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are poisoning the well by judging Israel without knowing anything about Israel.

Which is common with people who come to threads and yell "Religion " , and want any and all religion to go away.....but only when it comes to Israel.....because Israel is the root of all problems in the world.......

I have seen it before, and you are showing me the same thing again.  It never changes.

So, what does all of these discussion have to do with the Creation of Israel and the Mandate for Palestine? 

I must have taken a left turn somewhere and missed the road to nowhere .


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can go first.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And religion continues to poison everything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not because of religion that they can go first.
> 
> It's because of thousands of years of pograms, oppression and genocide of the Jewish people. The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then who is responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people perpetrating the atrocities are ALWAYS responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please explain further.
Click to expand...


What part don't you understand?


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they can stay safe in Israel, behind their wall. That doesn't necessitate a state religion. So I remain unmoved. The reason is still religion, even if you blame it on another religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not a religious State, it is a Secular State, created by Secular Jews.
> 1).Israel is a religious state but not calling it religious because  Muslim/Christian are greater in numbers, specially Muslim, not only greater in numbers but also greater in worship compare to any religion specially compare to jews like salt in flour. For example Muslim recite greater time than jew the prophets of jews than jew. This is the only reason Israeli use secularism instead.
> 
> You are not moved?  So what?
> 2).Because jew are not moving at all. Not only you are fanatic religious but racist too. You are living in the world but you don't want to live with mankind.
> Islam is basing their desire to destroy Israel on their religious beliefs and ideology.
> Islam didn't invade Israel, Jew invade Islamic holly land. Now don't tell me that you are native.
> 
> Israel has nothing to do with what islam or Christianity want, which is the destruction of Israel, because they cannot accept the existence of a Jewish State.  It is part of their ideology.
> 3). Again it is jew who invaded Islamic holly land, in fact Islam took over from christian not jew and fact is that before jew were not allowed to enter in holly land. It is King Salahuddin Ayubi who allowed you to live and pray alongside with Muslim and christian in Holly Land for 900 years, but what jew did to Palestinian. That is how jews are deceiver/betrayer, pushed those people out who accommodate them, innocent Palestinian.
> 
> Israel exists for the protection of the Jewish people against what has happened during the 1700 years before it reconstitution, and especially what both religions have again proven they are capable of against the Jewish people in the last 100 years.
> 4).False, Jews never have a country but jew still exist means no one want to kill them, and nobody kill jew over 5000 years. Then what is wrong with jew. Why jew never owned a country. Why jew lived undercover. Why jew don't mix with other mankind. Then why jew didn't follow all prophets. Then why jew tolled to Ala's Prophets that you are not a prophet of Ala.
> 
> Are jew playing God if not then why jew are playing Satanic roll. Are jew became Satan chosen people instead.
> 
> Too many Christians and Muslims want all the Jews dead.
> 5).False again, No one want to kill jews. Jew are living around the world and mostly in Muslim/Christian countries and making fortune. It is jew who are jew enemy. Means, Why German punished Jew, because jew sell German secrets to coalition.
> 
> The Jews say  "We are alive and will continue to live"
Click to expand...

6).No one deny it, It is jew who are denying, others rights to live, by invading innocent palestinian livelihood.

Please reply Fourth paragraph if possible.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  And religion continues to poison everything....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not because of religion that they can go first.
> 
> It's because of thousands of years of pograms, oppression and genocide of the Jewish people. The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then who is responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people perpetrating the atrocities are ALWAYS responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please explain further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part don't you understand?
Click to expand...

Please give some example, Like identify to those who perpetrating the atrocities.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they can stay safe in Israel, behind their wall. That doesn't necessitate a state religion. So I remain unmoved. The reason is still religion, even if you blame it on another religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not a religious State, it is a Secular State, created by Secular Jews.
> 1).Israel is a religious state but not calling it religious because  Muslim/Christian are greater in numbers, specially Muslim, not only greater in numbers but also greater in worship compare to any religion specially compare to jews like salt in flour. For example Muslim recite greater time than jew the prophets of jews than jew. This is the only reason Israeli use secularism instead.
> 
> You are not moved?  So what?
> 2).Because jew are not moving at all. Not only you are fanatic religious but racist too. You are living in the world but you don't want to live with mankind.
> Islam is basing their desire to destroy Israel on their religious beliefs and ideology.
> Islam didn't invade Israel, Jew invade Islamic holly land. Now don't tell me that you are native.
> 
> Israel has nothing to do with what islam or Christianity want, which is the destruction of Israel, because they cannot accept the existence of a Jewish State.  It is part of their ideology.
> 3). Again it is jew who invaded Islamic holly land, in fact Islam took over from christian not jew and fact is that before jew were not allowed to enter in holly land. It is King Salahuddin Ayubi who allowed you to live and pray alongside with Muslim and christian in Holly Land for 900 years, but what jew did to Palestinian. That is how jews are deceiver/betrayer, pushed those people out who accommodate them, innocent Palestinian.
> 
> Israel exists for the protection of the Jewish people against what has happened during the 1700 years before it reconstitution, and especially what both religions have again proven they are capable of against the Jewish people in the last 100 years.
> 4).False, Jews never have a country but jew still exist means no one want to kill them, and nobody kill jew over 5000 years. Then what is wrong with jew. Why jew never owned a country. Why jew lived undercover. Why jew don't mix with other mankind. Then why jew didn't follow all prophets. Then why jew tolled to Ala's Prophets that you are not a prophet of Ala.
> 
> Are jew playing God if not then why jew are playing Satanic roll. Are jew became Satan chosen people instead.
> 
> Too many Christians and Muslims want all the Jews dead.
> 5).False again, No one want to kill jews. Jew are living around the world and mostly in Muslim/Christian countries and making fortune. It is jew who are jew enemy. Means, Why German punished Jew, because jew sell German secrets to coalition.
> 
> The Jews say  "We are alive and will continue to live"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6).No one deny it, It is jew who are denying, others rights to live, by invading innocent palestinian livelihood.
> 
> Please reply Fourth paragraph if possible.
Click to expand...

Could you answer this?

Is any and all you post here taught by the Indian Preacher you listen to? Dr. Zakir Naik?

Is he the source of all your questions to us?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they can stay safe in Israel, behind their wall. That doesn't necessitate a state religion. So I remain unmoved. The reason is still religion, even if you blame it on another religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is not a religious State, it is a Secular State, created by Secular Jews.
> 1).Israel is a religious state but not calling it religious because  Muslim/Christian are greater in numbers, specially Muslim, not only greater in numbers but also greater in worship compare to any religion specially compare to jews like salt in flour. For example Muslim recite greater time than jew the prophets of jews than jew. This is the only reason Israeli use secularism instead.
> 
> You are not moved?  So what?
> 2).Because jew are not moving at all. Not only you are fanatic religious but racist too. You are living in the world but you don't want to live with mankind.
> Islam is basing their desire to destroy Israel on their religious beliefs and ideology.
> Islam didn't invade Israel, Jew invade Islamic holly land. Now don't tell me that you are native.
> 
> Israel has nothing to do with what islam or Christianity want, which is the destruction of Israel, because they cannot accept the existence of a Jewish State.  It is part of their ideology.
> 3). Again it is jew who invaded Islamic holly land, in fact Islam took over from christian not jew and fact is that before jew were not allowed to enter in holly land. It is King Salahuddin Ayubi who allowed you to live and pray alongside with Muslim and christian in Holly Land for 900 years, but what jew did to Palestinian. That is how jews are deceiver/betrayer, pushed those people out who accommodate them, innocent Palestinian.
> 
> Israel exists for the protection of the Jewish people against what has happened during the 1700 years before it reconstitution, and especially what both religions have again proven they are capable of against the Jewish people in the last 100 years.
> 4).False, Jews never have a country but jew still exist means no one want to kill them, and nobody kill jew over 5000 years. Then what is wrong with jew. Why jew never owned a country. Why jew lived undercover. Why jew don't mix with other mankind. Then why jew didn't follow all prophets. Then why jew tolled to Ala's Prophets that you are not a prophet of Ala.
> 
> Are jew playing God if not then why jew are playing Satanic roll. Are jew became Satan chosen people instead.
> 
> Too many Christians and Muslims want all the Jews dead.
> 5).False again, No one want to kill jews. Jew are living around the world and mostly in Muslim/Christian countries and making fortune. It is jew who are jew enemy. Means, Why German punished Jew, because jew sell German secrets to coalition.
> 
> The Jews say  "We are alive and will continue to live"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6).No one deny it, It is jew who are denying, others rights to live, by invading innocent palestinian livelihood.
> 
> Please reply Fourth paragraph if possible.
Click to expand...

Is 4) part of what Dr. Naik speeches are about?


4).False, Jews never have a country
( World History tells that the Jews did have a country)

but jew still exist means no one want to kill them
( Especially since Christianity  was created, its followers have been attacking Jews  for any excuse.  They "killed" Jesus.  They  "created Plagues", "killed christian children for their blood". etc, etc. All lies which got ignorant Christians upset and they would attack any Jews they would find.   Mostly, because Jews became the scapegoat for anything which went wrong with the people who ended up attacking the Jews )

and nobody kill jew over 5000 years.
( Again, History of the World will prove you wrong.  And Judaism is only a 3800 year old religion.  Even how long Judaism has been around, you are wrong about, from the source which told you that )

Then what is wrong with jew.
 (  NOTHING.  Nothing is wrong with the Jewish People.  Christians, and then Muslims wanted to be the main Monotheism, replacing Judaism and wanted to force all Jews to follow either religion.  The Jews refused.  THAT is the main reason why Christians and Muslims attack Jews as often as they do )

Why jew never owned a country.
( Israel was a Nation 3000 years ago and for a very long period of time.   King David was its first King. World history will tell you that .
History of the invaders to the area will tell you that.  You do not know Jewish history )

Why jew lived undercover.
 (  You need to clear that up for us.  What do you mean by that?

Why jew don't mix with other mankind.
 (Jews have been living all over the world for the past 2500 years.  If mixing, you mean, marrying non Jews, that has happened many times of non Jews converting and joining the tribe.

Then why jew didn't follow all prophets.
 (  More teachings from Dr. Naik?  What does he know about Judaism?  Does he read Hebrew?  Has he read the Torah in its original Hebrew?  )

Then why jew told to Ala's Prophets that you are not a prophet of Ala.
 ( Are you referring to the Jews in Arabia refusing to convert to Islam?  Why should they?  Why should they accept Mohammad as a prophet only because he said that he was a prophet and wanted them to abandon Judaism?  He killed and enslaved them, instead.
What kind of prophet of G-D, especially to the G-D of Abraham would do something like that ?
Jews do not call their G-D  Allah.  That is Mohammad's idea to call his god after he destroy all the other pagan gods of the Arabs and forced to accept only one god, as the Jews and Christians had.)

Are jew playing God if not then why jew are playing Satanic roll. Are jew became Satan chosen people instead.
(This is complete Christian and Islamic garbage to turn desperate and ignorant people against the Jews.  Neither Christianity, nor Islam, accept the Jewish person as a full human, as a human being with full rights because they would not accept Jesus or Allah as their new god.
THAT is what the whole hatred of Jews from both Christianity and Islam is about )


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not because of religion that they can go first.
> 
> It's because of thousands of years of pograms, oppression and genocide of the Jewish people. The Jewish people should be safe first.
> 
> 
> 
> Then who is responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people perpetrating the atrocities are ALWAYS responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please explain further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please give some example, Like identify to those who perpetrating the atrocities.
Click to expand...


Those who perpetrated atrocities against the Jewish people.


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ Rehmani, you have many questions in your previous posts about Ishmael and other things you have learned from various sources about things some Muslims have come to believe in as being part of  Islam.  That is what you seem to have heard from Dr. Naik and other Muslims.
Here is an article which tells how Ishmael and all other Jewish people, or ideas became part of Islam, 2700 years after Judaism was founded by Abraham.  Read it.  Re read it.  These are the facts of Jewish history as they happened, and not how they were changed later by Christianity and Islam.  You have any questions about what it says, feel free to ask them. Does it explain how there were no Palestinian Arabs in Ancient Canaan, or Egypt, as a whole group or a tribe? Especially none calling themselves Palestinians or considered to be Palestinians ?
Who was Ishmael, you asked.  Do you understand the answer in the article?  ]

The myth of the non-Jewish Abraham


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Shusha said:


> It's there right to self determination.


And religion poisons it. As it does everything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sixties Fan said:


> Now, if only you would make clear what you are talking about,


I did . 4 times. Read the discussion before jumping in.



Sixties Fan said:


> Nope, you are poisoning the well by judging Israel without knowing anything about Israel.


I didn't judge Israel. I judged religion. Again, you jumped in while knowing fuck all about what was being discussed.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's there right to self determination.
> 
> 
> 
> And religion poisons it. As it does everything.
Click to expand...

Religion or no religion, it is about power which many people in the past and present, and also in the future do everything for.

It is about power and territory, taking as much territory from others as possible and make them be dependent on them, be their slaves.

At what point in history of humanity have we not seen one tribe or another go into the other's territory and take it from them?

It is about religion?  Religion has nothing to do with wanting territory, wealth and power.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sixties Fan said:


> It is about religion? Religion has nothing to do with wanting territory, wealth and power.


Bullshit. It does when it does. And the muslims who want Jerusalem all to themselves want it because of religion. Period. Get that  apologetic nonsense out of here.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if only you would make clear what you are talking about,
> 
> 
> 
> I did . 4 times. Read the discussion before jumping in.
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are poisoning the well by judging Israel without knowing anything about Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't judge Israel. I judged religion. Again, you jumped in while knowing fuck all about what was being discussed.
Click to expand...

You were about Israel being a religious State and wanting it to be a secular State.  
We discussed it.  You do not accept that it Israel is a Secular State and go on about religion, religion, religion.

No Indiana, I have missed absolutely nothing of what you said.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about religion? Religion has nothing to do with wanting territory, wealth and power.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It does when it does. And the muslims who want Jerusalem all to themselves want it because of religion. Period. Get that  apologetic nonsense out of here.
Click to expand...

Muslims or Christians, it was about their god and about gaining more territory and converting more people.

But you want Israel to become Secular, still.  Regardless of the fact that it has always been Secular.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sixties Fan said:


> You were about Israel being a religious State and wanting it to be a secular State.


Correct. I was. 


Sixties Fan said:


> You do not accept that it Israel is a Secular State


Correct, because it isn't. The government is deeply went with the Jewish religious institution. 

And religion poisons everything. And this thread is about Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were about Israel being a religious State and wanting it to be a secular State.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was.
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not accept that it Israel is a Secular State
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, because it isn't. The government is deeply went with the Jewish religious institution.
> 
> And religion poisons everything. And this thread is about Israel.
Click to expand...

This thread is about the creation of the State of Israel and the Mandate for Palestine.  It is not about whether it is a religious or  Secular State.

But go ahead and give us some link as to how the Israeli government is deeply "what ?" with the Jewish religious institution.  Exactly how the religious groups, which ones?  are running the Israeli government, or making the government do whatever they tell them to.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Sixties Fan said:


> This thread is about the creation of the State of Israel and the Mandate for Palestine


And saying that I wish they would alter their course and become a true, secular state speaks right to that topic. Don't like that? Tough.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about the creation of the State of Israel and the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> And saying that I wish they would alter their course and become a true, secular state speaks right to that topic. Don't like that? Tough.
Click to expand...

You have proven nothing about Israel being a religious State.
All you have been doing is posturing.

No links, no articles, no videos, no nothing.

Au Contraire......quite easy.


----------



## flacaltenn

*The purpose of this sticky thread was to discuss the HISTORY and ORIGINS of borders and nations in the Holyland.  NOT to rehash modern events in the nation of Israel..  It was created so that arguments did not continually flow back 1000 or more years in EVERY other topic.. 

Literally NOTHING after the 67 war is appropriate for this thread... 

So you need to keep the scope of the discussion WITHIN the framework for which THIS thread has been created.. We may transfer out some of the recent discussion about recent Knesset decision on prioritizing immigration and citizenship to people of Jewish origin..  
*
*Please find a more appropriate thread for this discussion or create a new one.. *


----------

